Note: this is a playlist. If you click the More videos button while the video is playing, you can navigate to other sessions. Here are all the session replays:
Note: this is a playlist. If you click the More videos button while the video is playing, you can navigate to other sessions. Here are all the session replays:
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.
"Expanding Access to Justice with Online Tools," my article for the Boston Bar Journal, was published in the Fall 2025 edition. I'm including a few excerpts here.
Jack Brandt created Military Benefits Assistant with a ChatGPT account, an online Python course, plenty of curiosity, and a strong desire to make military benefits more accessible.
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.
The LIT Lab's RateMyPDF tool played a part in a recent First Circuit Judicial Council working group on best practices for court forms.
Video of Sam Glover and Jessica Frank, presenting at the eCourts 2024 conference, on how courts can build stronger digital infrastructure and increase access to justice.
Why people resist the change promised/threatened by AI and what one can do to prepare for the unknown.