We’d like to reintroduce ourselves. We’re the Access to Justice (A2J) Lab, a research entity within Harvard Law School, that’s been around since 2016, courtesy of a starter grant from Arnold Ventures (nèe the Laura and John Arnold Foundation). Our mission is to transform law into an evidence-based field. That transformation will likely take decades, so we’re focused on starting a movement. That’s the quick pitch.
Starting a movement means reaching decision makers – judges, lawyers, court administrators, paralegals, project assistants, clerks, everyone who makes up the legal profession. Currently, those decision makers structure the legal system by relying on either historical precedent (“that’s the way it’s always been done,” not to be confused with case law precedent) or experiences, either personal experiences or those of elites. To many in the legal profession, those are the only sources of knowledge that count. We at the A2J Lab want to bring in a third way — scientific evidence. So that’s the “Lab” part of our name.
We also want to address what’s in the first part of our name – “Access to Justice.” Most people think that phrase refers only to civil legal issues. We don’t. We think “access to justice” means how human beings (as opposed to institutions) interact with the formal legal system. We think the dividing line between the civil justice system and the criminal justice system is artificial. Our work reflects that belief. The Lab pursues projects ranging from online courts in family law to criminal justice record clearing (aka expungement). And as you’ll see in our posts or through scanning project updates on our website, we’re true to the data. If the data suggest changing a current practice, we recommend changing it. If the data suggest keeping a current practice, we recommend keeping it. Politically, we’re willing to tack right or left, depending on the evidence. Politically, we follow the evidence — regardless of whether it leads us “right” or “left.”
Scientific evidence can take many forms. Great studies can be qualitative or quantitative. Great quantitative studies can take place in a lab, online, or in the field. The A2J Lab focuses almost exclusively on fielding randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We do so for two reasons. First, field RCTs are the best way (or the least worst way) to find out what actually works. Future blog posts will explain more about this, but in a nutshell, doing research in the field means that testing occurs in a realistic setting, and randomization eliminates (to the extent statistically possible) other possible explanations for what a study reveals. Second, field RCTs provide the most direct challenge to the supremacy of professional judgment. Again, future blog posts will explain more about this, but in a nutshell, field RCTs temporarily replace a decision that a legal professional would otherwise make (such as whether to hold a hearing online, or whether to offer a particular person an attorney-client relationship) with a randomizer. In other words, for an RCT to occur, legal decision makers have to temporarily give up their decision-making power. Currently, few are willing to do so.
Transforming the legal system into an evidence-based field won’t be easy. We have a lot of ground to cover! Here’s a list of some of the topics we expect to cover in this blog, as well as on our newly launched podcast, also called Proof Over Precedent (topics will mirror each other, so you can get your news visually or audibly or both).
a. Important and interesting findings from the A2J Lab and from other researchers
b. Ongoing projects of interest (or projects that we’d like to see done), again from the A2J Lab and other researchers
c. What we mean by “access to justice”
d. Why we focus on randomized control trials (RCTs)
e. Interviews of interesting people in access to justice and legal empiricism, including legal professionals, scholars, and others
f. “Professional reversals”: instances in which professionals in a field reached a consensus that some practice/procedure was best, but later, one or more RCTs showed that practice/procedure to be harmful or no better than a less expensive or intrusive alternative
g. How regulation of the legal profession inhibits access to justice
h. Artificial intelligence in access to justice
i. The ethics of randomized field operations
j. Student topics: students in a new A2J Lab seminar will write their own blog posts and record their own corresponding podcasts
We also want to hear from you: what topics interest you? What do you want to hear more about? What do you think of what we’ve said? Who would you like to hear from? Leave comments for us!
You’ve found our blog (and can continue to get updates whenever we post), but please also give a listen to our Proof Over Precedent podcast or follow us on your favorite social media app – we’re on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Bluesky. Now, on to our next topic…