Justice by Design: Can legal tech deliver on its promise?

by Hansraj Agrawal | Oct 24, 2025 | Law

Justice can be defined as the quality of being impartial or fair. In practice, fairness has never been evenly distributed. Access to justice has always been available to those who can afford it, while those without the necessary means were often left to their own devices. That unfortunate reality reflects inherent inequity; when only the wealthiest in a society can afford legal representation, injustice inevitably follows.

Historically, many attempts have been made to expand access to affordable legal services. Approaches have included encouraging pro bono work, publicly funding legal aid offices and enacting provisional laws that enable nonlawyers to engage in the limited practice of law. Together, these efforts have reduced the gap somewhat, but a large percentage of those in need of legal services remains underserved.

Technological innovation has long been offered as a possible solution. One theory is that with the right software, lawyers can work more efficiently and take on more cases. Alternatively, legal consumers can use online tools and information to effectively navigate the court system on their own. Or perhaps a combination of both approaches will bridge access to justice.

Legal technology providers have leaned into this two-pronged approach over the last two decades, building self-help legal information sites and software that streamlines law practice and law firm operations. Those efforts certainly helped move the needle. However, with continued governmental funding cuts and the increasing cost of legal services, affordable representation for all has remained frustratingly elusive.

Artificial intelligence’s vast potential

Enter artificial intelligence and its promise of a new dawn of legal representation. Lawyers would be freed from the anchors of mundane, tedious work—able to focus more intently on representing more clients more effectively. Legal consumers would have more options available to them, from using AI to assist with navigating the complexities of the court system, representing themselves using AI-drafted documents and advice, or using AI to better choose and interact with their attorneys.

Administrative functions would be supplemented or even replaced by AI. Legal research would be streamlined and simplified; drafting legal documents would take far less time; and the document review process would be drastically shortened, shaving years off complex litigation timelines. Courts supported by AI tools would be more productive, with larger dockets moving more efficiently and faster than ever, and access to justice for all would finally be realized.

We’re not there—yet

So much potential, so little time. Legal technology companies have been racing toward this idealized future, investing money, time and people into developing AI tools that could, at long last, bridge the justice moat.

However, the path from promise to practice is rarely straightforward. For every company promoting its latest AI revolution, there are others working behind the scenes to integrate meaningful AI-powered features into their products that could change the future of legal practice.

Relativity forges a path

These efforts were on full display earlier this month in Chicago at e-discovery software company Relativity’s annual conference, Relativity Fest. News from the conference and discussions with legal technology leaders highlighted the continued push to streamline litigation and increase access to legal information through innovation.

For example, two of the key announcements from Relativity supported the push to encourage new approaches to the rapid development of tools that enable a more just and streamlined litigation process.

First, there’s Rel Labs, Relativity’s new innovation hub, which embodies the industry’s ongoing effort to design the future of legal work more intentionally. Rather than simply releasing another product, Relativity is carving out space for collaboration and inviting developers, startups and partners to build directly into its platform.

Recognizing that no single company can “solve” access to justice, Relativity now offers the opportunity for shared infrastructure and open experimentation. The launch also represents a shift from competition to cooperation and an acknowledgment that sustainable innovation in law depends as much on community as on code.

Another key piece of news is the fifth anniversary of Relativity’s “Justice for Change,” an initiative that supports organizations focused on expanding access to justice. Over the past five years, it has quietly provided hundreds of pro bono and public interest teams with the same data tools from Relativity that are used by major firms. These cases, which range from exonerations to child advocacy, exemplify the tangible benefits technology can offer when it’s made accessible to organizations working for change.

The building blocks of innovation

Other news during the conference included HaystackID’s release of new tools designed to help legal teams authenticate digital evidence, a much-needed effort as courtrooms are flooded with manipulated video and AI-generated content. Its VALID suite helps lawyers determine whether evidence is genuine before it reaches the courtroom. At a time when courts are struggling to address the issue of AI-generated deepfakes, practical innovations like these are exactly what’s required to ensure our justice system runs smoothly.

Similarly, ModeOne shared news of its updated integration with Relativity, which makes it easier for litigators to collect and review mobile data. By streamlining the collection of mobile phone data, manual handling and errors are reduced, resulting in a faster path to the analysis of relevant information.

Together, these practical innovations provide the foundational building blocks of progress. Innovation rarely arrives as a single breakthrough. More often, it’s a collection of steady, practical advances that make it easier to identify relevant information, ensure the reliability of evidence, and increase workflow efficiencies.

The announcements from this conference proved that the innovative spirit is alive and well in the AI era. But the question remains: Will today’s innovation lead to increased and equitable legal representation?

During the conference, I participated in a panel that addressed this very issue, along with many other topics. The panel was comprised of my legal technology journalist colleagues and moderated by David Horrigan, Relativity’s discovery counsel and legal education director. This question of whether AI innovation would bridge the access-to-justice gap inspired a heated debate.

Some panelists suggested that AI software can enable law firms to handle more cases while also providing better self-help tools for self-represented litigants. I argued that capitalism always trumps altruism, and profit-driven corporate decision-making rarely leads to outcomes designed to improve the lives of the indigent. Of course, that’s a rather cynical generalization, but in my experience, it often holds true.

Ultimately, after much debate, the answer to the query turned out to be a very lawyerly one: It depends. AI can help improve access to justice, but everyone agreed that it won’t be the magic bullet to the dilemma.

The path forward

Although the debate raised more questions than it answered, one thing became clear: Progress depends not just on technology itself but on the people and values driving its use. Regardless of the underlying motive, when companies develop AI-powered tools that enable the delivery of more efficient legal services by lawyers who care about access to justice, amazing things can happen.

Technology alone can’t solve the problem, but AI innovation can have a noticeable impact, and that’s what’s so encouraging about this conversation. The focus has shifted from whether innovation belongs in our profession to how it can be used responsibly, thoughtfully and for societal good. If this current momentum and out-of-the-box thinking can be maintained, perhaps justice by design will be more than an aspiration; it may finally become reality.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist. She is the principal legal insight strategist at 8am, parent company of LawPay, MyCase, CasePeer and Docketwise. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is a co-author of Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for ABAJournal.com and Above the Law, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and she regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on LinkedIn, or she can be reached at [email protected].

Source link

Trump’s plan to penalize states using cashless bail is unconstitutional and unnecessary, critics say

by Hansraj Agrawal | Aug 28, 2025 | Law

Criminal Justice

Trump’s plan to penalize states using cashless bail is unconstitutional and unnecessary, critics say

By Debra Cassens Weiss

August 28, 2025, 9:36 am CDT

Critics are raising questions about the constitutionality and wisdom of President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to pressure states to require cash bail for defendants charged with a variety of crimes. (Image from Shutterstock)

In his Aug. 25 executive order, Trump called for the federal government to withhold grants and contract funds to jurisdictions that have “substantially eliminated” cash bail for charged crimes “that pose a clear threat to public safety and order, including offenses involving violent, sexual, or indecent acts, or burglary, looting or vandalism.” In a second Aug. 25 order, Trump called for “appropriate actions,” including funding decisions, to press Washington, D.C., to change its policies on cashless bail.

Trump’s plan to withhold funds “is simultaneously an attack on federalism and an attempt to usurp Congress’ spending power,” wrote Ilya Somin, a professor at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, at the Volokh Conspiracy. “Supreme Court precedent—most of it authored by conservative justices—holds that only Congress can impose conditions on state and local governments receiving federal grants, and those conditions must be clearly stated in the statutes allocating the funds.”

U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires that grant conditions be clearly indicated by Congress, be related to the purpose of the grant, and not be coercive, Somin said.

“In addition,” he wrote, “this is an attempt to insert the federal government in a core traditional area of state and local authority. Few powers are more central to state and local autonomy than control over state criminal law enforcement.”

Washington, D.C., provided a roadmap for other states when it eliminated cash bail in 1992, Bloomberg Law reports. The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law identified 19 states and one city that enacted reforms related to pretrial release over the decade ending in 2023. The report focused on five of those states. Three of them repealed some of the changes, and in two others, judges appeared reluctant to order pretrial release despite reforms.

Among the jurisdictions, details varied. Illinois eliminated cash bail entirely, while New Jersey eliminated it for most cases. Some eliminated cash bail for only certain lower-level crimes. Some required ability-to-pay determinations or the least restrictive means of release.

Judges in jurisdictions with cashless bail still consider whether to detain a defendant based on criteria that include criminal history and whether the charged crime involves violence, explain Bloomberg Law and CNN. Illinois, for example, created a default rule that all people charged with an offense are eligible for pretrial release on personal recognizance, subject to conditions of release set by a judge. Defendants who are considered a danger to the public or a flight risk will be held.

The ABA supports limits on the use cash bail and supports the elimination of bail schedules that consider only the nature of the charged offense, according to a 2017 ABA Journal article written by the ABA Governmental Affairs Office.

Supporters of cashless bail say it ensures fairness because defendants without money to pay bail will be treated the same as those who can afford it. They also say it prevents poor defendants from losing their jobs while they are in jail, which could lead them to commit crimes to support themselves or their families.

One 2013 study found a strong correlation between length of pretrial detention and likelihood of committing more crimes, according to a 2016 story by the Journal. Researchers suggested that as the time in detention increases, the detainees’ place in the community becomes more destabilized, increasing the risk of reoffending.

Supporters of cashless bail also point to findings showing that the practice does not endanger public safety.

The District of Columbia’s Pretrial Services Agency has reported that 87% of defendants in superior court were released before trial in fiscal year 2024, and 89% of them were not rearrested, the Washington Post reports. At the national level, 87% of people released before trial were not rearrested while on release, the agency said.

A study of dozens of jurisdictions by the Brennan Center for Justice found no statistically significant relationship between bail reform and crime rates. The findings hold true even when considering cashless bail states such as New Jersey and Illinois, the researchers found.

Those who oppose cashless bail say jurisdictions that prevent pretrial detention for lower-level crimes are impeding judges’ ability to detain people who cycle in and out of the justice system.

“You have ‘turnstile justice’ where recidivists have been arrested for the same crime hundreds of times … and you can’t impose bail,” said James Gagliano, a retired FBI supervisory special agent who spoke with CNN. “It’s wrong, and it doesn’t fix the system.”

One example cited by those who want to keep cash bail is the case of a teenager charged with the fatal October 2024 beating of DJ and hair stylist Bryan Smith. The accused teen had five pending charges for robbery and assault at the time of the crime, according to Bloomberg Law.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

Riding Camels in Mongolia With Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: A journey of friendship and the rule of law

by Hansraj Agrawal | Aug 27, 2025 | Law

When the conversation ended, I simply stared into space, stunned. I must have misheard the official from the U.S. Agency for International Development. This can’t be happening to me, I thought.

“We would like you to accompany Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on her trip to Mongolia this fall to support democratic reforms,” he said. It was summer 2000, and I had just returned from Mongolia, where I helped develop the country’s first justice system strategic plan.

I was astonished and elated by the opportunity—but not intimidated—as I had first met Justice O’Connor in Bulgaria in 1994, where I was serving as a pro bono rule of law liaison for the Central and East European Law Initiative, a project of the American Bar Association. Justice O’Connor, the first member of CEELI’s executive board, was in Bulgaria for its 1994 board meeting.

At the suggestion of Homer Moyer Jr. and Talbot “Sandy” D’Alemberte, CEELI was founded after the fall of the Berlin Wall to support democratic transitions abroad by providing U.S. legal expertise in judicial reform, strengthening of legal frameworks, and promoting accountability and transparency in governance. USAID was its principal funder with additional support from the Department of State.

Within its first decade, CEELI mobilized more than 5,000 American lawyers, judges and legal scholars, serving as unpaid volunteers, to work in former communist countries alongside their counterparts—local legal pioneers committed to advancing the rule of law. Together, they helped improve the lives of millions across more than two dozen nations.

Justice O’Connor was deeply committed to CEELI’s historic mission. Over more than a decade, she never missed a single board meeting.

Working with CEELI became my passion, leading me to volunteer for five years. Over that time, Justice O’Connor and I developed both a professional and personal friendship. We met often at the Supreme Court and shared meals together with her husband, John, in Washington, D.C., at their Arizona home and in my hometown, San Francisco.

I was thrilled to return to Mongolia. After the era of Genghis Khan, Mongolia had nearly become forgotten. That changed in the 1990s with the collapse of communism, which hurled Mongolia back onto the world stage. Mongolians were no longer the only ones who knew how stunningly beautiful their remote country was.

When Justice O’Connor and John arrived in Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia, their first request was to visit the countryside. That didn’t surprise me, since I knew Justice O’Connor would be more at home roaming the hills among wandering cattle than whirling around Ulaanbaatar in a Russian-built automobile.

It was during this trip to Mongolia that I got to know John well. He and Justice O’Connor were remarkably similar—exceptionally intelligent and lighthearted when off duty. Although a nationally prominent lawyer, John, like Justice O’Connor, never let titles interfere with friendships or professional relationships. His self-confidence was essential to their relationship. When others heaped praise on Justice O’Connor, he would remind her that she was once a cowgirl who rode horses and swam in a cattle tank. No matter how often he said it, she always laughed.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (center) and Mary Noel Pepys (right) pose with a local man and a camel in Mongolia in 2000. (Photo courtesy of Mary Noel Pepys)

On our first day, our driver took us on a countryside tour. As we drove through the open landscape, Justice O’Connor lit up at the sight of Mongolian cowboys with their lassos.

“The horses make me feel at home,” she said, pointing to one in the distance. “That reddish-brown one looks like Chico.” He was her favorite horse on her family’s ranch.

To learn how nomadic cowboys live, I suggested we visit a family living in a ger— a Mongolian yurt. Though uninvited, I reassured them that in nomadic cultures like Mongolia, strangers are always welcomed.

As we approached, a graceful woman emerged from her ger and introduced herself as Altansarnai. There was no need to identify us beyond being Americans—nomadic Mongolians measure status by livestock, not titles.

Altansarnai invited us into her ger and offered lunch. What looked stark from the outside dazzled us inside. The floors and walls were covered with vibrantly colored rugs and fabrics in stately jewel tones. Above the ger hung a side of raw mutton—stored there for lack of refrigeration. Altansarnai brought it inside and whacked it into small pieces. Beside the wooden stove sat a container of cow dung, which she used to heat both her ger and our meal.

With help from our driver, we asked her opinion of elections in Mongolia. She eagerly described the recent presidential race, concluding, “There is a sanctity in freely voting for the candidate of your choice.” Justice O’Connor and I sighed.

Americans often take for granted rights handed to them on a silver platter.

On our return to Ulaanbaatar, Justice O’Connor grew curious as we passed a village with a modest courthouse and three camels nearby. I described its interior from a prior visit: one courtroom, a shared office for three judges, a hallway with benches—and no restroom. “You mean the courthouse has its own outhouse?” John quipped. We all laughed, picturing robed judges trudging through snow to a shack midtrial.

Back at the hotel, Justice O’Connor reviewed her 10-page schedule promoting democratic reforms: numerous briefings with U.S. and Mongolian governmental officials, a keynote at a rule of law conference, a roundtable with Mongolia’s women trailblazers, a seminar with law students, press conferences and official dinners. Exhausting for John and me—but not for Justice O’Connor.

On our last day in Mongolia, she asked if we could take a camel ride. She had to be joking. “A camel ride,” she repeated calmly, as if asking for a cup of tea.

I had worked hard to accommodate not only the needs of Mongolians but also to anticipate Justice O’Connor’s interests. A camel ride was not among them, and arranging it at the last minute was impossible.

However, Justice O’Connor was like the E.F. Hutton ad from the 1980s—when she spoke, people listened.

Dressed as we were, we set off to ride the camels. As mine lurched forward to stand, I shrieked, certain I was about to be catapulted to the ground. Justice O’Connor, on the other hand, sat tall and steady, her hand resting casually on the saddle. Once a cowgirl, always a cowgirl.

Two decades later, during my last visit with Justice O’Connor at her retirement home in Phoenix—her dementia seeping into our limited conversation—I reminisced about our trip to Mongolia, her love for CEELI and her commitment to the universal importance of the rule of law.

She praised the 5,000 American lawyers and judges for their unwavering commitment to advancing the rule of law abroad, describing their volunteerism as a hallmark of American citizenship and an inspiring act of selflessness that made a meaningful difference in the lives of others.

One can only wonder what Justice O’Connor would make of the global backsliding of the rule of law, now compounded by USAID’s dismantling. Knowing her as I did, I’m confident she would urge us to press on—at home and abroad—to resist authoritarianism, defend human rights and uphold the rule of law. Let’s commit to doing just that.

Since 1993, Mary Noel Pepys has helped to advance the rule of law in more than 45 countries, specializing in international legal and judicial reform. More recently, she has focused on the rule of law and judicial independence in the United States through the Alliance for American Rule of Law, a network of international rule of law practitioners.

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”

Source link

Estranged son of Donna Adelson, charged with law prof’s murder, called as a government witness

by Hansraj Agrawal | Aug 27, 2025 | Law

Criminal Justice

Estranged son of Donna Adelson, charged with law prof’s murder, called as a government witness

By Debra Cassens Weiss

August 27, 2025, 12:47 pm CDT

Government exhibit from the murder trial of Donna Adelson. (Photo by the Tallahassee Democrat via the Associated Press)

New York physician Robert Adelson, the estranged son of murder defendant Donna Adelson, testified about an unusual phone call during his mother’s trial this week in Tallahassee, Florida, for the murder of a law professor who was her former son-in-law.

It was the first time Robert Adelson testified in any prosecutions in the case, one of which led to the November 2023 conviction of another of Donna Adelson’s sons, dentist Charlie Adelson.

Donna Adelson is accused of seeking the murder of Florida State University College of Law professor Dan Markel to allow her daughter Wendi Adelson, a lawyer who was Markel’s ex-wife, to relocate with the couple’s two children from Tallahassee to be near the family in Miami.

Robert Adelson testified Monday that his mother called on his wedding anniversary, which was two days after the arrests of two alleged hit men, the first arrests in the case. Publications covering the testimony include the Tallahassee Democrat (here and here) and WCTV.

Robert Adelson said he considered the arrests “big news” but his mother did not bring it up during the phone call. He finally broached the topic, according to the Tallahassee Democrat’s coverage. “I said it at least two or three times—that they made an arrest, they got the guy who killed Danny,” Robert Adelson testified. “And her response was, ‘I’ve got to go.’ ”

“That was the last time I spoke with her,” he said.

Robert Adelson also testified about the family dynamic, according to a news analysis by the Tallahassee Democrat that labeled him “the most credible witness on the stand.”

“He testified Donna is controlling and rigid with fixed ideas regarding her children and their lives,” the newspaper reports. “He described his sister Wendi as acting like a ‘damsel in distress’ during the divorce.”

Donna Adelson approved of Markel until Wendi Adelson left him, Robert Adelson testified. Donna Adelson helped her daughter and the children leave while Markel was away for a speaking engagement and was gleeful when her daughter told Markel she had left just before he went on stage.

Wendi Adelson, who has not been charged, denied any involvement in the murder, the Tallahassee Democrat reports in a separate story. In testimony on Monday, she described the legal custody battle with Markel and her inability to get a judge to agree that she should be allowed to relocate with the children. She also said her brother Charlie Adelson had joked about hiring a hit man to kill Markel.

Earlier in the day, an investigator testified that Markel had filed a March 2014 motion to prevent Donna Adelson from having unsupervised visits with the children after they reportedly told Markel that “Grandma says she hates you.”

A hearing on the motion never occurred because Markel was killed beforehand.

Donna Adelson is the fifth person prosecuted in the case. The last person convicted was her son, Charlie Adelson. The alleged triggerman, Sigfredo Garcia, was convicted, and his alleged accomplice, Luis Rivera, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. An alleged go-between accused of hiring the hit men for Charlie Adelson, Katherine Magbanua, was also convicted.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

Equity partner profits jump 13.7% in first half of 2025 amid rising law firm revenue

by Hansraj Agrawal | Aug 27, 2025 | Law

Law Firms

Equity partner profits jump 13.7% in first half of 2025 amid rising law firm revenue

By Debra Cassens Weiss

August 27, 2025, 8:58 am CDT

Law firms held the line on equity partner ranks in the first half of 2025 as revenue increased, helping profits per equity partner increase 13.7% from the same period last year, according to a six-month survey of mostly larger firms by Wells Fargo’s Legal Specialty Group. (Image from Shutterstock)

The number of equity partners increased by only 0.7% in the first half of the year, compared to the same time last year. At the same time, firm revenue increased 11.3% and net income increased 14.5%, Wells Fargo said Tuesday in a summary of the findings.

Nonequity partners are the fastest growing category of lawyers in firms, increasing more than 5% from the same period last year, according to the survey. Overall, lawyer head count was up 3.4%.

Increases in standard billing rates, up 9.2% from the first six months of 2024, are the primary reason for revenue growth.

On the downside, demand for legal services decreased 2.1% in the year’s first half, well below the 3.2% growth forecasted by firms in January.

The increase in nonequity partners contributed to lawyer compensation growth of 10.4%. Overhead costs, which include professional staff salaries and general expenses, were up 8.6%.

More than 130 firms took part in the survey, including 67 of the nation’s 100 top-grossing firms and 46 firms with gross revenues putting them in the Am Law Second Hundred.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

Retired judge sexually assaulted assistant in courthouse stairwell, lied to investigators, federal indictment says

by Hansraj Agrawal | Aug 25, 2025 | Law

Judiciary

Retired judge sexually assaulted assistant in courthouse stairwell, lied to investigators, federal indictment says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

August 25, 2025, 3:57 pm CDT

A retired superior court judge in Fresno County, California, has been charged in a federal indictment with an alleged sexual assault of a judicial assistant and then lying about that attack and about a second incident. (Photo by Matthew Field, CC-BY-SA-3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

Retired Judge Adolfo Corona, 66, is charged in an Aug. 21 indictment, according to an Aug. 22 press release and reporting by Law.com, Bloomberg Law and the Fresno Bee.

He is charged with deprivation of the right to bodily integrity under color of law, false statements with the intent to hinder law enforcement, and attempted alteration of a document to impair its use in an official proceeding.

Both incidents allegedly happened at the Fresno County Courthouse in California.

The indictment alleges that Corona sexually assaulted a judicial assistant in a stairwell in March 2024 and made false statements about it during an administrative investigation and a criminal investigation by the FBI.

He is accused of falsely telling an investigator that the woman grabbed his phone while they were in the stairwell and added her cellphone number to it. He is also accused of falsely telling FBI agents that he led the woman into a stairwell because he was going to go back upstairs to work after giving the woman a gift.

Corona actually penetrated the woman with his fingers without her consent and then left the courthouse, the indictment alleges.

The indictment alleges that Corona also made false statements to the FBI during an investigation of a December 2023 incident involving another judicial assistant who was found alone in his chambers with her pants unbuttoned after passing out. Corona had been alone with the woman for about two hours, and she was found about 30 minutes after he left, the indictment says.

Corona had claimed that he left the woman alone in his chambers while he drove to a motorcycle dealership to pick up his motorcycle. Prior to his statements, he had called the dealership and asked an employee to falsify records for the date that he picked up his motorcycle to coincide with the date of the incident in his chambers, the indictment alleges.

Corona was formerly indicted for the alleged sexual assault by a grand jury in Fresno County, according to the news reports. He pleaded not guilty.

A lawyer for Corona, Margarita Martinez-Baly, told Law.com that Corona will “definitely” plead not guilty to the federal charges.

Corona retired in April 2024 after serving as a judge for more than 20 years.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

Times Top News

Times Top News