July/August 2026 Issue

Also in this issue: Wisconsin’s Local Government Response to Hyper Scale Data Centers: An Overview     |     Wisconsin Court of Appeals Upholds Act 10

The Importance of Wisconsin’s Notice of Claim Statute in the Era of AI-Assisted Litigation

Emmerson Mirus | 08.25.26

Recent articles from Forbes, the American Bar Association, and Bloomberg Law have highlighted a developing trend: artificial intelligence (AI) is fueling a surge of pro se litigation. AI tools make it easier for self-represented litigants to draft pleadings, research legal theories, and pursue claims without counsel. Municipal officials and attorneys should expect AI-assisted pro se lawsuits to become more common, particularly because municipalities regulate many aspects of daily life, including property taxes, land use and zoning, public records, ordinance enforcement, and local permitting and licensing.

That development makes a refresher on Wisconsin’s notice-of-claim statute worthwhile. Wisconsin Stat. § 893.80(1d) generally requires a potential plaintiff to satisfy notice requirements before bringing or maintaining an action against a municipality or its officers, officials, agents, or employees. From a practical lens, the statute gives municipalities early notice of potential claims, an opportunity to investigate while facts are still fresh, and a chance to settle before litigation begins.

The notice-of-claim statute is also an important defense tool. A claimant generally must serve a written and signed notice of the circumstances of the claim within 120 days after the event giving rise to the claim. The claimant also must present the appropriate clerk with the claimant’s address and an itemized statement of the relief sought. Those requirements are not mere technicalities. When a claimant does not comply, the municipality may seek dismissal of the lawsuit.

A pleading generated with the help of an AI tool still must satisfy the same procedural prerequisites as any other lawsuit. That point may prove especially useful in cases filed by self-represented litigants, where the complaint may be lengthy, polished, and legally framed, but the claimant may not have taken the required pre-suit steps. In turn, city attorneys should carefully review the claim history at the outset of the case, including whether the claimant served a timely notice, whether the notice was served on the correct municipal official, whether the claimant presented an itemized statement of relief, whether the municipality disallowed the claim or allowed the statutory period to run, and whether noncompliance should be pleaded as an affirmative defense.

Just as important, municipalities must preserve the defense. In 2019, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Maple Grove Country Club v. Maple Grove Estates Sanitary District, 2019 WI 43 (April 23, 2019) (Municipal Law Newsletter, May/June 2019) that noncompliance with the notice-of-claim statute is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional defect that can be raised at any time. As a result, a municipality that wants to rely on noncompliance must plead the defense in its responsive pleading. Simply denying an allegation that the plaintiff complied with the statute is not enough.

The practical takeaway is simple: when a city receives a summons and complaint from a self-represented litigant, the notice-of-claim statute should be at the top of the initial defense checklist. These threshold issues are increasingly important as a means of minimizing litigation costs in the AI era. While AI may help plaintiffs get their day in court, it does not excuse failure to comply with Wisconsin’s municipal notice requirements.