Student Voices

Cartoon depicting a line of potential jurors outside a courthouse with a sign saying the jury selection is at capacity (but only two jurors selected)

Randomizing Reforms to Ensure the Right to an Impartial Jury

The Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury—particularly for Black defendants facing disproportionately white juries—isn’t always a guarantee. This “Student Voices” blog proposes three reforms to be randomized and studied in real courts, rather than assuming they work, to mitigate possible implicit racial bias in juries.

Cartoon depicting a pro se litigant seeking help from AI, but AI is literally tied up in caution tape from UPL regulations

Is UPL Targeting AI to Protect Consumers or Protect Lawyers?

Law could use a tool like AI to bridge the accessibility gap between practitioners and the pro se litigants attempting to navigate the legal field. In this second post in a two-part series on AI and the unauthorized practice of law (UPL), HLS student Elizabeth Guo outlines six points of argument in favor of AI and against UPL as the tool to regulate AI in legal practice.

Cartoon depicting a sign pointing up a long path to Court (10-hour line) vs a sign pointing to a desk with a robot indicating a 5-minute AI decision

Brazil’s AI-Driven Courts: Innovation Without Evaluation

To tackle one of the world’s largest backlog of cases awaiting judicial decisions, Brazil’s courts are relying on AI systems to prioritize cases, support legal research, and even draft judicial decisions. The change in process may help address cases much quicker but at what cost? Largely untested in the justice system, AI’s impact deserves rigorous evaluation before deploying it in real-world situations.

Cartoon depicting AI as a robot not allowed to sit at the lunch table with the lawyers, J.D. candidates, and bar associations.

How Can General-Purpose AI Withstand UPL Scrutiny?

In the first of a two-part series on AI and the Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL), HLS J.D. candidate Elizabeth Guo explores current UPL rules, the challenging definition of “practice of law”, and the reasons why general-purpose AI tools will not likely be tested by UPL rules when it comes to providing legal information.

Cartoon depicting the bar as autos being allowed through an intersection in which a truck labeled as an auto club must stop.

Collision Course: How the Bar Drove Auto Clubs Out of Court

A Depression-era legal battle between the bar association and auto clubs like AAA pitted the financial interests of lawyers against those of consumers. When the bar won, it not only set forth a future of legal reform controlled by courts rather than lawmakers, it also laid the groundwork for a hundred years of access-to-justice issues that continue to plague the legal profession.

Cartoon depicting a police officer as a cat shining a light on a mouse chained in a room vs. cat in a window-lit room giving a mouse a piece of cheese at a table.

Environments of Justice: Reimagining Interrogation Rooms

In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, HLS student Spencer Thieme discusses interrogation rooms and the effect of a physical environment on stress, memory, disclosure, and false confessions. She also considers potential randomized controlled trials for studying interrogation room design.

Cartoon depicting Upsolve in jail without a way to communicate while New York courts stand tall with a megaphone in hand

Inside Upsolve’s Legal Fight for Justice Advocacy

Upsolve is a New York nonprofit attempting to create a program in which non-lawyers give limited legal advice to low- income people in debt collection litigation. The organization would be a boon in helping the roughly 80 percent of defendants failing to appear in debt collection court. The only thing standing in its way? New York’s Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) statute. HLS student Ashil Jhaveri charts a legal argument based on UPL’s unconstitutionality that could hopefully move the organization forward.

Cartoon depicting a police officer taking the shirt off of an individual's back and declaring that it was used in a crime.

Civil Forfeiture’s Access to Justice Problem

File this one under “historic laws in need of modernizing.” Civil forfeiture—the act of seizing and forfeiting physical property, regardless of whether an individual has been charged with a crime — has its roots in customs and piracy cases. But today, in addition to serving as a tool to pad police department’s budgets, it more often keeps cars, cash, and possessions out of the hands of potentially innocent individuals with no guarantee of legal representation. The result is an access to justice failure, as reported by HLS student Joe Liberman in this week’s “Student Voices” blog and podcast episode.

Cartoon depicting a parent and child stuck on a life boat with the S.S. Courthouse boat nearby holding case storage and S.S. Resources boat holding everything the parent and child need (social work, financial help, etc.).

Navigating Unmet Social Needs: A Closer Look at New York Family Courts

In his 2026 State of the Judiciary Address, Hon. Rowan Wilson, Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, took the opportunity to bring attention to one of the state’s most critical access to justice problems: the difficulties families face while navigating New York Family Court. Despite judicial efforts to address families’ underlying social needs, the legislative and executive branches of the state—and in the larger context, the nation—have the responsibility to implement more lasting improvements.

Cartoon depicts inmate waiting to be admitted into a virtual child welfare hearing

Locked Out: Structural Barriers to the Child Welfare System for Incarcerated Parents

For a child, parental incarceration is a legal gateway into the child welfare system. Parents have rights to participate in custody proceedings, but incarceration erects barriers that can make meaningful participation difficult. In this “Student Voices” post, we look at the current system–one in eight incarcerated parents lose their parental rights–and potential solutions to these barriers that, if left unchecked, can effectively lock incarcerated parents out of the child welfare process.

Scroll to Top