In a surprising turn of events, a tenant found a note on his door demanding he vacate the premises within 48 hours. The landlord had changed the locks without prior notice or any court order. Despite the tenant consistently paying rent on time and never being informed of any lease infractions, he was locked out, unable to access critical items like his medication, work attire, or the lease agreement itself.
This disturbing incident prompted the tenant to seek legal guidance.
“To assist our volunteer attorneys in understanding the timeline, have you received any written warnings or communications from your landlord regarding your lease before the locks were changed?”
“Does the note indicate a specific reason for the lock change or reference a court case number?”
“Has any law enforcement officer or court official been involved in this situation or served you with any formal documents?”
These questions, combined with the tenant’s thorough answers, helped establish a basis for a lawyer to evaluate and potentially take on the case.
However, there was one twist: the tenant was fictional, and the inquiries originated from an artificial intelligence program.
This interaction was part of a prototype developed by second- and third-year law students at the University of Denver, designed to showcase how a chatbot can assist in collecting information for lawyers, who may then choose to offer their help.
The course, titled “Reimagining Justice,” was taught by U.S. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell, a noted expert on the role of emerging AI technologies in the legal field. The objective was to explore AI as a tool to improve access to justice for individuals who often find the legal system challenging to navigate without representation.
The Design Sprint
Currently, judges in Colorado are looking at the regulation of AI within the law. Earlier this year, the Colorado Supreme Court adopted a rule urging attorneys to utilize artificial intelligence tools responsibly, to avoid disciplinary actions. In some instances, federal judges have also enacted protocols that require parties to disclose their use of generative AI in legal documents.
Braswell, the only federal judge based in Colorado Springs, has taken an active role in educating legal professionals about the advantages and risks associated with AI. She frequently speaks alongside other judges interested in AI, and recently initiated the Judicial AI Consortium, a nationwide initiative.
The “design sprint” took place during her class, wherein students formed two teams to quickly devise a solution to an access-to-justice issue.
“The first phase involved ’empathy-building,’ where students had to identify a specific gap in the access-to-justice arena,” said Braswell. “They researched who would benefit from their service or product, interviewing and observing them to understand their challenges.”
One team honed in on immigration law, ultimately creating a clearinghouse to deliver push notifications on executive orders, legislation, and policy changes. Each notification includes an AI-generated summary, a simplified explanation, and a bullet-point list detailing its implications for clients.
This tool also features a case simulator, enabling users to select common scenarios in immigration cases and specify the current case stage. The simulator recommends actions and relevant specialists for further assistance.
The other team crafted an intake tool that allows users to describe their legal predicaments to a chatbot or connect via a phone line with an AI receptionist. After responding to the chatbot’s prompts for details, the client’s messages are then relayed to registered lawyers. These lawyers can discuss the case, reply to the client, and express agreement or disagreement with one another’s inputs, akin to upvoting or downvoting a social media post.
Conor Burns, a third-year law student from the intake tool team, elaborated on their learning process, mentioning discussions with a self-represented litigant coordinator, attendance at a clinic focused on tenant rights, and observation of a divorce hearing involving parties who lacked proficiency in English and representation.
“We aimed to gather diverse insights to tackle potential issues effectively,” Burns said.
Anthony Kennedy, a second-year law student who previously interned for Braswell, noted that the intake tool is designed to highlight urgent legal concerns, including cases that may intersect different areas of law, such as evictions linked to family law matters.
“Often, on platforms like Reddit, public defenders might seek advice on complex cases,” he explained. “Our intention was to create a more secure space for attorneys to share insights than what Reddit offers.”
A Shift in Perspective
Using “vibe coding,” the teams were able to articulate their concept to an AI program, refining the product through further prompts rather than the conventional manual coding approach.
On April 16, Braswell welcomed several legal experts to assess the students’ creations.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella, who entered the classroom with a healthy skepticism of AI, revealed that she traditionally approaches technology with caution and worries about AI’s potential to diminish critical-thinking skills in lawyers.
“I do not allow my staff to use AI when drafting orders,” Starnella stated. “While I recognize its potential for enhancing access to justice, I’ve encountered issues with self-represented litigants relying on AI to prepare briefs, resulting in documents with inaccurate citations. Consequently, I’ve had to issue sanctions on a few occasions.”
Despite her reservations, Starnella was eager to evaluate the students’ projects, acknowledging the inevitable beneficial uses of legal AI in the future. She left the classroom with a slightly more open perspective on AI.
“What I found refreshing about these presentations was that neither proposal aimed to replace lawyers or their analytical reasoning,” Starnella remarked. “Instead, they serve as tools to enhance lawyers’ effectiveness, assisting self-represented litigants in advocating for themselves and equipping them with resources to better understand legal matters.”
Judge Brittany Kauffman, CEO of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at DU, emphasized the importance of the exercise within law education. She noted, “Students weren’t merely developing an AI tool; they were learning about design thinking, user-centered design, and empathy while considering the justice system’s users.”
Kennedy, the second-year student, discussed how some states have created environments where AI legal tools are accessible to self-represented litigants, ensuring that large law firms do not monopolize innovation.
“One aspect I admire about Judge Braswell is her ability to simplify complex topics,” he noted. “As young people, we can often feel overwhelmed by the intricacies of societal processes. However, change is achievable with a few motivated individuals.”
Braswell acknowledged that while each prototype requires further refinement for commercial use, she is enthusiastic about passing the concept to interested professionals.
“Feedback indicated that these tools could genuinely fill a need, demonstrating their potential usefulness,” she said.
