How Can AI Augment Access to Justice? Public Defenders' Perspectives on AI Adoption

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.22933v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 02:26:08 GMT
• Title: How Can AI Augment Access to Justice? Public Defenders' Perspectives on AI Adoption
• Authors: Inyoung Cheong, Patty Liu, Dominik Stammbach, Peter Henderson,
• Abstract summary: We find that AI adoption is constrained by costs, restrictive office norms, confidentiality risks, and unsatisfactory tool quality.<n>Public defenders view AI as most useful for evidence investigation to analyze overwhelming amounts of digital records.<n>Courtroom representation and defense strategy are considered least compatible with AI assistance.
• Score: 6.949832807566659
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Public defenders are asked to do more with less: representing clients deserving of adequate counsel while facing overwhelming caseloads and scarce resources. While artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) are promoted as tools to alleviate this burden, such proposals are detached from the lived realities of public defenders. This study addresses that gap through semi-structured interviews with fourteen practitioners across the United States to examine their experiences with AI, anticipated applications, and ethical concerns. We find that AI adoption is constrained by costs, restrictive office norms, confidentiality risks, and unsatisfactory tool quality. To clarify where AI can and cannot contribute, we propose a task-level map of public defense. Public defenders view AI as most useful for evidence investigation to analyze overwhelming amounts of digital records, with narrower roles in legal research & writing, and client communication. Courtroom representation and defense strategy are considered least compatible with AI assistance, as they depend on contextual judgment and trust. Public defenders emphasize safeguards for responsible use, including mandatory human verification, limits on overreliance, and the preservation of relational aspect of lawyering. Building on these findings, we outline a research agenda that promotes equitable access to justice by prioritizing open-source models, domain-specific datasets and evaluation, and participatory design that incorporates defenders' perspectives into system development.

Related papers

• Legal Retrieval for Public Defenders [7.3695561431128915]
  NJ BriefBank is a retrieval tool which surfaces relevant appellate briefs to streamline legal research and writing.<n>We show that existing legal retrieval benchmarks fail to transfer to public defense search.<n>This includes query expansion with legal reasoning, domain-specific data and curated synthetic examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T17:08:34Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Concerning the Responsible Use of AI in the US Criminal Justice System [5.5215545294476485]
  Piece advocates for clear explanations of AI's data, logic, and limitations.<n>Calls for periodic audits to address bias and maintain accountability in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T20:33:42Z)
• Ethical Challenges of Using Artificial Intelligence in Judiciary [0.0]
  AI has the potential to revolutionize the functioning of the judiciary and the dispensation of justice.<n>Courts around the world have begun embracing AI technology as a means to enhance the administration of justice.<n>However, the use of AI in the judiciary poses a range of ethical challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-27T15:51:56Z)
• Tasks and Roles in Legal AI: Data Curation, Annotation, and Verification [4.099848175176399]
  The application of AI tools to the legal field feels natural.<n>However, legal documents differ from the web-based text that underlies most AI systems.<n>We identify three areas of special relevance to practitioners: data curation, data annotation, and output verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T04:34:58Z)
• Do Responsible AI Artifacts Advance Stakeholder Goals? Four Key Barriers Perceived by Legal and Civil Stakeholders [59.17981603969404]
  The responsible AI (RAI) community has introduced numerous processes and artifacts to facilitate transparency and support the governance of AI systems. We conduct semi-structured interviews with 19 government, legal, and civil society stakeholders who inform policy and advocacy around responsible AI efforts. We organize these beliefs into four barriers that help explain how RAI artifacts may (inadvertently) reconfigure power relations across civil society, government, and industry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T00:14:37Z)
• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  General purpose AI seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. We introduce PARTICIP-AI, a framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming [124.89885800509505]
  Some researchers fear that conducting such research or releasing their findings will result in account suspensions or legal reprisal. We propose that major AI developers commit to providing a legal and technical safe harbor. We believe these commitments are a necessary step towards more inclusive and unimpeded community efforts to tackle the risks of generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T20:55:08Z)
• Citizen Perspectives on Necessary Safeguards to the Use of AI by Law Enforcement Agencies [0.0]
  This study explores the views of 111 citizens towards AI use by police through interviews. It integrates societal concerns along with propositions of safeguards from negative effects of AI use by LEAs in the context of cybercrime and terrorism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T12:26:34Z)
• An Uncommon Task: Participatory Design in Legal AI [64.54460979588075]
  We examine a notable yet understudied AI design process in the legal domain that took place over a decade ago. We show how an interactive simulation methodology allowed computer scientists and lawyers to become co-designers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-08T15:46:52Z)
• AI and Legal Argumentation: Aligning the Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  Legal argumentation is a vital cornerstone of justice, underpinning an adversarial form of law. Extensive research has attempted to augment or undertake legal argumentation via the use of computer-based automation including Artificial Intelligence (AI) An innovative meta-approach is proposed to apply the Levels of Autonomy (LoA) of AI Legal Reasoning to the maturation of AI and Legal Argumentation (AILA)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-11T22:05:40Z)
• How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligence [81.04070052740596]
  Legal Artificial Intelligence (LegalAI) focuses on applying the technology of artificial intelligence, especially natural language processing, to benefit tasks in the legal domain. This paper introduces the history, the current state, and the future directions of research in LegalAI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-25T14:45:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.