AI and access to justice: How AI legal advisors can reduce economic and shame-based barriers to justice

Brandon Long; Amitabha Palmer

doi:10.14512/tatup.33.1.21

Authors

Brandon Long Department of Philosophy, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green (US) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7153-4267 brlong@bgsu.edu
Amitabha Palmer MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston (US) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6362-4935 philosophami@gmail.com

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.33.1.21

Keywords:

artificial intelligence, shame, barriers to justice, philosophy of technology, law

Abstract

ChatGPT – a large language model – recently passed the U.S. bar exam. The startling rise and power of generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems such as ChatGPT lead us to consider whether and how more specialized systems could be used to overcome existing barriers to the legal system. Such systems could be employed in either of the two major stages of the pursuit of justice: preliminary information gathering and formal engagement with the state’s legal institutions and professionals. We focus on the former and argue that developing and deploying publicly funded AI legal advisors can reduce economic and shame-based cultural barriers to the information-gathering stage of pursuing justice.

References

AI Lawyer (2023): AI lawyer blog. Available online at https://ailawyer.pro/blog, last accessed on 03. 01. 2024.

Arredondo, Pablo; Driscoll, Sharon; Schreiber, Monica (2023): GPT-4 passes the bar exam. What that means for artificial intelligence tools in the legal profession. In: Stanford Law School Blog. Available online at https://law.stanford.edu/2023/04/19/gpt-4-passes-the-bar-exam-what-that-means-for-artificial-intelligence-tools-in-the-legal-industry/, last accessed on 03. 01. 2024.

Aviva (2021): The Aviva fraud report. The online fraud epidemic during the pandemic. London: Aviva. Available online at https://static.aviva.io/content/dam/aviva-corporate/documents/newsroom/pdfs/reports/Aviva_Fraud_Report_2021.pdf, last accessed on 03. 01. 2024.

Bartneck, Christoph; Bleeker, Timo; Bun, Jeroen; Fens, Pepijn; Riet, Lynyrd (2010): The influence of robot anthropomorphism on the feelings of embarrassment when interacting with robots. In: Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 1 (2), pp. 109–115. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13230-010-0011-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s13230-010-0011-3

Battle, Brittany (2019): “They look at you like you’re nothing”. Stigma and shame in the child support system. In: Symbolic Interaction 42 (4), pp. 640–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.427 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.427

Beckers, Anna; Teubner, Gunther (2021): Three liability regimes for artificial intelligence. Algorithmic actants, hybrids, crowds. Oxford: Hart. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509949366 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509949366

Beqiraj, Julinda; McNamara, Lawrence (2014): International access to justice. Barriers and solutions. London: International Bar Association. Available online at https://www.biicl.org/documents/485_iba_report_060215.pdf?showdocument=1, last accessed on 03. 01. 2024.

Camp, A. Rachel (2022): From experiencing abuse to seeking protection. Examining the shame of intimate partner violence. In: UC Irvine Law Review 13 (1), pp. 103–154. Available online at https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/ucilr/vol13/iss1/7, last accessed on 03. 01. 2024.

Casetext (2022): Westlaw, lexis outranked by Casetext on G2. Casetext blog, 27. 06. 2023. Available online at https://casetext.com/blog/casetext-to-join-thomson-reuters-ushering-in-a-new-era-of-legal-technology-innovation, last accessed on 03. 01. 2024.

Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor (2008): Making the law work for everyone. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme. Available online at https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/633966?ln=en, last accessed on 03. 01. 2024.

Deakin, Simon; Markou, Christopher (eds.) (2020): Is law computable? Critical perspectives on law and artificial intelligence. Oxford: Hart. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509937097 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509937097

Dolezal, Luna; Lyons, Barry (2017): Health-related shame. An affective determinant of health? In: Medical Humanities 43 (4), pp. 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2017-011186 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2017-011186

Durfee, Alesha; Messing, Jill (2012): Characteristics related to protection order use among victims of intimate partner violence. In: Violence Against Women 18 (6), pp. 701–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212454256 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212454256

Fair, Lesley (2023): FTC crunches the 2022 numbers. See where scammers continue to crunch consumers. In: FTC Buisness Blog, 23. 02. 2023. Available online at https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/02/ftc-crunches-2022-numbers-see-where-scammers-continue-crunch-consumers, last accessed on 03. 01. 2024.

Farrell, Amy (2011): Fat shame. Stigma and the fat body in American culture. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Fazelpour, Sina; Danks, David (2021): Algorithmic bias. Senses, sources, solutions. In: Philosophy Compass 16 (8), p. e12760. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12760 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12760

Gill, Nick et al. (2021): The tribunal atmosphere. On qualitative barriers to access to justice. In: Geoforum 119, pp. 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.11.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.11.002

Goffman, Erving (1986): Stigma. Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Grimm, Paul; Grossman, Maura; Cormack, Gordon (2021): Artificial intelligence as evidence. In: Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 19 (1), pp. 9–106. Available online at https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol19/iss1/2, last accessed on 04. 01. 2024.

Harris-Perry, Melissa (2011): Sister citizen. Shame, stereotypes, and black women in America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hildebrandt, Mireille (2016): Law as information in the era of data-driven agency. In: The Modern Law Review 79, pp. 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12165 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12165

Holthöwer, Jana; Van Doorn, Jenny (2023): Robots do not judge. Service robots can alleviate embarrassment in service encounters. In: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 51 (4), pp. 767–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00862-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00862-x

Korobkin, Russell; Guthrie, Chris (1994): Psychological barriers to litigation settlement. An experimental approach. In: Michigan Law Review 93 (1), pp. 107–192. https://doi.org/10.2307/1289916 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1289916

Legal Services Corporation (2022): The justice gap. The unmet civil legal needs of low-income Americans. Washington, DC: Legal Services Corporation. Available online at https://lsc-live.app.box.com/s/xl2v2uraiotbbzrhuwtjlgi0emp3myz1, last accessed on 03. 01. 2024.

Long Chamness, Sarah; Ponce, Alejandro (2019): Measuring the justice gap. A people-centered assessment of unmet justice needs around the world. Washington, DC: World Justice Project. Available online at https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/access-justice/measuring-justice-gap, last accessed on 04. 01. 2024.

McClellan, Frank; White, Augustus; Jimenez, Ramon; Fahmy, Sherin (2012): Do poor people sue doctors more frequently? Confronting unconscious bias and the role of cultural competency. In: Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research 470 (5), pp. 1393–1397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2254-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2254-2

Nayeen, Zulker (2020): Social and cultural barriers in accessing civil justice system. In: The Daily Star, 11. 02. 2020. Available online at https://www.thedailystar.net/law-our-rights/news/social-and-cultural-barriers-accessing-civil-justice-system-1866442, last accessed on 04. 01. 2024.

OECD (2013): What makes civil justice effective? In: OECD Economics Department Policy Note 18, pp. 1–16. Available online at https://web-archive.oecd.org/2013-06-20/238744-Civil%20Justice%20Policy%20Note.pdf, last accessed on 04. 01. 2024.

OECD (2015): Equal access to justice. Expert roundtable notes. Paris: OECD. Available online at https://www.oecd.org/gov/Equal-Access-Justice-Roundtable-background-note.pdf, last accessed on 04. 01. 2024.

Overstreet, Nicole; Quinn, Diane (2013): The intimate partner violence stigmatization model and barriers to help seeking. In: Basic and Applied Social Psychology 35 (1), pp. 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.746599 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.746599

Priest, George; Klein, Benjamin (1984): The selection of disputes for litigation. In: The Journal of Legal Studies 13 (1), pp. 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1086/467732 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/467732

Rattray, Kate (2023): Harvey AI. What we know so far. In: Clio Blog, 10. 10. 2023. Available online at https://www.clio.com/blog/harvey-ai-legal/, last accessed on 03. 01. 2024.

Silverman, Stephanie; Molnar, Petra (2016): Everyday injustices. Barriers to access to justice for immigration detainees in Canada. In: Refugee Survey Quarterly 35 (1), pp. 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdv016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdv016

Stolper, Antonia; Walker, Mark; Sabatini Christopher; Marczak Jason (2007): Rule of law, economic growth, and prosperity. New York, NY: Americas Society and Council of the America Rule of Law Working Group. Available online at https://www.as-coa.org/sites/default/files/Rule%20of%20Law.pdf, last accessed on 03. 01. 2024.

Task Force on Justice (2019): Justice for all. Final report. New York, NY: Center on International Cooperation. Available online at https://www.sdg16.plus/resources/justice-for-all-report-of-the-task-force-on-justice/, last accessed on 03 January 2024.

The Perryman Group (2009): The impact of legal aid services on economic activity in Texas. An analysis of current efforts and expansion potential. Waco, TX: The Perryman Group. Available online at https://legalaidresearch.org/2020/02/04/the-impact-of-legal-aid-services-on-economic-activity-in-texas-an-analysis-of-current-efforts-and-expansion-potential/, last accessed on 04. 01. 2024.

Tribunal administratif du logement (2023): JusticeBot – interactive legal information tool. Available online at https://www.tal.gouv.qc.ca/en/justicebot-interactive-legal-information-tool, last accessed on 03. 01. 2024.

Viser, Cassidy (2022): The economics of injustice. Stratification in medical malpractice claims by poor and vulnerable patients. In: Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy 29 (2), pp. 273–285. Available online at https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2022/05/GT-GPLP220017-3.pdf-Cassidy-Viser.pdf, last accessed on 04. 01. 2024.

Walker, Robert; Bantebya-Kyomuhendo, Grace (2014): The shame of poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weinstein, Ian (2002): Don’t believe everything you think. Cognitive bias in legal decision making. In: Clinical L. Rev. 8 (783), pp. 783–834. Available online at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2779670, last accessed on 04. 01. 2024.

Williams, Alicia (2023): Consumer fraud awareness gets d grade. In: AARP Research, 17. 05. 2023. https://doi.org/10.26419/res.00606.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26419/res.00606.001

Williams, Stacey; Mickelson, Kristin (2008): A paradox of support seeking and rejection among the stigmatized. In: Personal Relationships 15 (4), pp. 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00212.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00212.x