Labour, social and administrative courts in Baden-Württemberg have seen a marked rise in proceedings and longer waiting times since the start of the year. According to consistent assessments from within the judiciary, many of the additional filings are legal documents written with the help of artificial intelligence. The Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg described the situation as an “AI wave” at its annual press conference, while the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Justice and Migration calls it an “immense challenge”. Südwestrundfunk reports significant backlogs in several areas of the courts.
The increase is most clearly documented in social-law disputes. According to the Higher Social Court, between 2024 and 2025 the number of cases involving subsistence support rose, including those concerning citizens’ allowance, social assistance and asylum-seeker benefits; applications for urgent proceedings also rose sharply. Labour courts have likewise reported higher caseloads and longer average proceedings. Administrative courts say they are reaching capacity, particularly in mass proceedings.
Court presidents and spokespeople cite several factors behind the additional workload. First, readily available text generators lower the barrier to bringing claims in cases where legal representation is not compulsory, resulting in more filings that are formally admissible but weak in substance or repetitive. Second, AI-assisted legal documents often produce excessively long, unstructured blocks of text containing standardised passages. This makes it harder to review, apply the law and prioritise cases, and lengthens preliminary checks. Some courts report unusually lengthy statements of claim that take up additional time from both judges and other court staff. The judiciary does not claim that AI-generated texts alone explain the situation; it also points to a general increase in proceedings and staff shortages.
The Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Justice and Migration says it is considering additional resources and supporting courts in increasing staffing levels where possible. At the same time, internal measures are under discussion, such as clearer requirements for structuring legal documents in proceedings where legal representation is not compulsory, or stricter use of standard forms in urgent cases. No specific legislative changes have been adopted so far; according to the authorities, the debate about procedural adjustments is at an early stage.
Two points will be key to what happens next: reliable statistics on incoming and completed cases and the length of proceedings in the affected courts; and organisational responses, such as staffing plans and working practices. Predictions about lasting legal effects remain speculative. What is clear is that digital tools—in this case, automated text generation—are having a tangible impact on established judicial routines.
Editor: Mira Cadena (Article created with AI assistance).