The Legal Innovation & Technology Lab at Suffolk University Law School
I arrive at this conclusion with my eyes open: it is morally wrong to withhold carefully tested AI tools from unrepresented litigants when the alternative is ChatGPT or nothing at all. In this essay, I explore the positive case for AI and why I reject the most common criticisms, and propose a "crossroads test" to evaluate the safety of different AI use cases.
A preview of the next-generation Weaver for Docassemble.
In case you, too, are a practitioner in law and you would like to participate in an AI and law conference or a workshop associated with the main conference (like our series of AI for Access to Justice workshops), I thought it might be helpful to explain what I have learned about how to succeed in this space.
More than two years after the launch of ChatGPT, AI is starting to deliver for legal aid and self-represented litigants. On June 20th, researchers and lawyers from around the world showcased that growth at an academic workshop co-organized by the LIT Lab.
There is a long tale about a recent e-filing snafu that the LIT Lab encountered, and a short one. It's a dashing tale with adventures, mysteries, and unfortunately, a real life impact, albeit one handled with grace by the great staff at the Massachusetts Appeals Court. The difference between the long one and the short one is what caused our troubles.
New AI tools promise to help save municipal lawyers' time and quickly get them up to speed on new areas of work or changes in the law.