Law is a millennium behind medicine (give or take a few centuries). While medicine has evolved into a science-based discipline with rigorous empirical standards, law still operates on precedent, rhetoric, and theory untethered to scientific evidence. It doesn’t have to be that way. There is nothing so unique about the practice of law that makes it immune to data. Why should law, unlike every other discipline, not submit itself to math and science?
Using humans in legal research requires ethical oversight, much like scientific research, but with some distinctions. IRB expert Shannon Sewards shares those nuanced differences and offers insight into some of the challenges in determining activities requiring IRB oversight, balancing ethics with regulatory requirements, and operating with reduced support from the federal government.
Across the country, courthouse cell phone bans pose a significant barrier to entry to the legal system. HLS J.D. candidate Andrew Reed argues that in attempting to maintain a respectful atmosphere and protect privacy with cellphone bans, courthouses have inadvertently made access to justice less attainable for many, including pro se litigants.
When researchers in the United States conduct human subjects research, they must submit to the watchful eye of Institutional Review Boards. To many researchers, especially those outside of fields typically engaged in human subjects research, IRBs are mysterious, bureaucratic entities. Here, we delve into demystifying IRBs and the Common Rule.
When one court system in the U.S. clashed internally over the best medium to hear family law cases, they sought out a randomized control trial for the answer. That A2J Lab study, initiated in 2021, is nearing the end of its evaluation of online versus in-person family law hearings, focusing on self-represented litigants.
The COVID-19 pandemic thrust online court into a mainstream alternative to traditional in-person court hearings. Zoom has shown mixed results, both in its ability to capture the needs of a court hearing (including sticky notes passed between attorneys and clients) and its role in reducing failure to appear rates in court. This makes online court a prime candidate for a randomized control trial to test its impact on court appearances.
Can we do anything about failure to appear in criminal cases? According to Alissa Fishbane, we can, and for once, what we can do is cheap and easy. Her research has shown that low-cost interventions such as redesigning summons and traffic tickets have been highly effective at reducing missed dates, resulting in fewer penalties for defendants, more efficient adjudication, and savings for the justice system as a whole.
Legal information programs aim to support pro se noncitizens navigating the high stakes and extreme inequities of the U.S. system. Given that 63% of all noncitizens and 83% of detained noncitizens proceed without counsel, these programs could act as necessary stopgaps. It is worth delving deeper into the nature of these programs and the evidence that these programs promote access to justice for unrepresented noncitizens navigating the complexities of our immigration system.
Two-thirds of people facing deportation lack legal representation, and 86% of immigrants being detained do not have a lawyer. Without counsel, many will be deported to face persecution or violence – regardless of their legal right to stay. One partial solution may lie in empowering non-lawyers to take a larger role in representing individuals facing deportation.
The OpenJustice project, now just a year since inception, has gained interest due in part to its hot topic: combining access to justice and artificial intelligence. The project addresses whether AI allows volunteer pro bono attorneys and staff to provide legal information and advice (without a traditional attorney-client relationship) more effectively and efficiently than status quo operations, which do not use AI assistance.
