(Wyo. 2018)). The second, Finch v. Smith, CH-2023-0000021 (Wyo. Chan. Ct. 2023), is not a real case. In light of that fake precedent, the court is not sure—without performing its own research—whether the many unsupported legal rules raised are likewise fictitious.1
[
¶4] As cautioned in an earlier order in this case (FSX No. 76143844), a Wyoming pro se litigant is “treated no differently than he would be if he were represented by an attorney.” Dewey v. Dewey, 2001 WY 107, ¶ 17, 33 P.3d 1143, 1147 (Wyo. 2001). And a pro se litigant’s misuse of AI is sanctionable under Rule 11. Chan v. Khermani LLC, 2024 WYCH 11 (Wyo. Ch. C. 2024). Among the problems AI misuse causes in litigation is the unfairness of an opposing party attempting to make sense of a barrage of unsupported or inaccurate contentions: a brief created by AI “takes inordinately longer to respond to than to create[.]” Ferris v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, No. 3:24-CV-304-MPM-JMV, 2025 WL 1122235, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 16, 2025). The same is true for the court, who “must parse through the . . . points of law to determine which parts, if any, are true.” Id.
[
¶5] As a court that embraces technology, the chancery court does not discount the potential of AI to assist in the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of cases. But AI must be used properly. A litigant misuses AI by, for example, failing to verify the accuracy of legal citations, neglecting to consider which arguments and theories to include in motions, and not developing arguments or citing authority for legal rules.
[
¶6] Such improper use of AI undermines the purpose of this court, “established for the expeditious resolution of disputes involving commercial, business, trust and similar issues.” Wyo. Stat. § 5-13-115(a). The court’s earlier order (FSX No. 76143844) also apprised Ms. Nelson that this court aims to resolve most of its cases within 150 days of a case’s scheduling order—Wyo. Stat. § 5-13-104, W.R.C.P.Ch.C. 1—and that a scheduling order is typically issued within 14 days after any defendant answers. W.R.C.P.Ch.C. 16(b)(1). With such an expedited schedule, cases in this court cannot get bogged down with motions improperly drafted by AI without verification of accuracy and with a barrage of unsupported arguments.
1
Aside from its concern that the motion’s legal standards are fabrications, the court may decline to “consider issues unsupported by cogent argument or citation to pertinent authority.”
Baer v. Baer, 2022 WY 165, ¶ 38, 522 P.3d 628, 640 (Wyo. 2022).
See also GeoMetWatch Corp. v. Behunin, 38 F.4th 1183, 1218 (10th Cir. 2022) (quoting
McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995–96 (6th Cir. 1997) (“[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumen- tation, are deemed waived. It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to ... put flesh on its bones.”)).
Sonnett v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 2013 WY 106, ¶ 26, 309 P.3d 799, 808 (Wyo. 2013) (“It is not enough to identify a potential issue with the expectation that this court will flesh out the matter from there.”)