courts

Road intersection at night by Marc Olivier-Paquin via Unsplash

No devil at this crossroads: the moral case for using AI to help close the access to justice gap

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 futuristic, sci-fi scene: a man stands centered against a cool gray background, both hands raised as if pressing invisible controls. Black gloves with glowing blue points trace his fingertips, while translucent holographic arcs and data panels float around his hands. Soft reflections of code, grids, and interface elements layer across the image, making it feel like he’s physically manipulating a digital system in midair.

Algos, bias, due process, & you

TL;DR: I built a bunch of highly-modular online simulations you can use with your students. They cover automation bias, the false positive paradox, competing definitions of fairness, disparate impact resulting from machine bias, and the value of due process. Most of them are self-explanatory and can be used on their own. However, the first one intentionally lacks in-simulation context, and I think linking them together creates a more-compelling narrative arc. Play with the links above in isolation, or join me for the guided tour.

No hyphen, no cry: the long and short of standards in court filings

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.