Process Automation in High-Volume Litigation
Corporations automate filings at scale while defendants lack support, exacerbating legal inequality.
​
Topics Covered
​Robotic process automation (RPA), debt buyers, e-filing, access disparity, automation tools for defense
Background Information
Definition:
Process automation in litigation refers to the use of software—like Robotic Process Automation (RPA)—to automate routine legal tasks such as preparing legal filings, document generation, case monitoring, and court submissions.
​
Context:
In the U.S., consumer debt collection lawsuits make up a significant portion of civil court dockets. An estimated 1 in 4 civil cases are related to debt collection, and many of these are filed by debt buyers—companies that purchase large portfolios of unpaid debt from original creditors at discounted rates.
​
Key Technologies Used:
RPA (to generate documents, track cases, file electronically)
CRM systems (to manage caseloads and follow-ups)
E-filing portals and scheduling APIs
Data extraction & auto-population tools
Pain Points
Asymmetry of Power:
Debt collectors have institutional access to automated tech and legal staff; defendants are often unrepresented, low-income, and unaware of their rights.
​
High Default Judgment Rate:
~70–90% of debt collection lawsuits end in default judgment (the defendant doesn’t respond or appear in court).
​
Due Process Risks:
Many defendants don’t receive proper notice, don’t understand the claims, or aren’t even aware they’ve been sued.
​
Automation Without Oversight:
Some filings are mass-produced without proper verification of evidence, leading to wrongful suits or inflated claims.
Innovation & Digitization
How Debt Collectors Use Automation:
Tools generate pleadings with minimal human intervention
Software monitors court dockets and triggers actions based on timelines
Template-based litigation enables high case throughput with low cost
​
Examples of Tools:
LexisNexis Courtlink for docket tracking
RPA platforms like UiPath or Blue Prism customized for legal teams
Auto-generation of affidavits and court motions
​
What’s Lacking for Defendants:
Few tools help individuals respond to suits
Limited digital legal assistance (chatbots, response forms, guided defense kits)
​
Innovations Aimed at Balance:
Upsolve: Helps low-income individuals file for bankruptcy
Gideon: Legal triage tool used by legal aid orgs
DoNotPay: Offers limited tools for fighting minor claims, tickets, etc.
Ethical Considerations & Responsibilities
Key Ethical Questions:
Is it fair for one side to use automation to scale filings while the other can’t even understand the process?
Should filings generated entirely by machines require additional oversight?
Is the court system inadvertently enabling assembly-line litigation?
​
Calls for Reform:
Some experts argue courts should slow down default judgments and scrutinize bulk-filing practices.
Advocacy groups push for automated response tools to be allowed under UPL reforms.
Proposals for transparency requirements in automated filings (e.g. label AI-generated content)
​
Equity Considerations:
Without intervention, automation widens the justice gap.
Efforts must focus on balance, not just innovation.