In this Student Voices episode, HLS J.D. candidate Leann Poarch discusses the significant costs of detaining individuals who await trial, such as legal fees, loss of employment, and long-term economic and psychological effects. Given that detaining individuals not yet convicted can cost local governments more than $13 billion, is it time to look into reforming the pretrial system?

Image by Courtney Chrystal, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, the fourth in a series on Ethics in the Law, host Jim Greiner talks again with IRB expert Shannon Sewards to discuss the complexities and criteria involved in obtaining waivers of informed consent within the realm of social science and legal research, comparing it to the regulations governing medical research. The two dive into an A2J Lab study on pretrial risk assessment tools to use as an example in determining the necessity of obtaining informed consent. When does protecting study participants take precedence, and when do critical research needs supersede those of participants? Read the corresponding blog post. Speakers: Shannon Sewards, Director of the Human Research Protection Program, Dartmouth Health; former Director, Harvard University Area IRB Jim Greiner, Honorable S. William Green Professor of Public Law at Harvard Law School; Faculty Director of the Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School Resources mentioned: General Requirements for Informed Consent (45 C.F.R § 46.116) General Waiver or Alteration of Consent (45 C.F.R § 46.116(f) Office of Human Research Protection Common Rule (45 C.F.R § 46(a) Related “Ethics in the Law” series episodes: Episode 8: Ethics in Research — IRBs and the Common Rule Explained Episode 10: What is Human Subjects Research in Law? Episode 14: Ethical Conundrums in Legal Research Share feedback and relevant topics you would like the A2J Lab to discuss: a2jlab@law.harvard.edu Stay connected with the Access to Justice Lab: Email newsletter Facebook BlueSky LinkedIn YouTube Support the A2J Proof Over Precedent cover art by Courtney Chrystal

Why is it so hard logistically to file for divorce when legally some cases are quite simple and uncomplicated? This second divorce study episode of Proof Over Precedent dives into the data behind the hassle factors and shares the surprising results of measuring the pro se accessibility of a court system. Maybe the answer isn't more lawyers.

When it comes to obtaining a divorce, pro se litigants face significant obstacles, stemming primarily from financial challenges. Without a lawyer, many are ill equipped to undertake the complex paperwork, waiting periods, and logistical hurdles that come with filing for divorce. This first of two divorce study episodes of Proof Over Precedent introduces the randomized controlled trial the A2J Lab undertook to determine how effective pro bono matching services are in providing access to justice for low-income individuals.

Rogers hearings allow Massachusetts judges to approve treatment plans for involuntarily committed individuals, but the process is criticized for its inefficiency and 99% approval rate. What if procedural reforms could improve outcomes? Replacing district court judges with administrative law judges to oversee hearings and substituting public defenders with mental health professionals as patient advocates could improve outcomes for both the involuntarily committed individuals and the courts—reducing delays, improving patient outcomes, and better utilizing court resources. All we need is an RCT.

In this "Student Voices" episode of Proof Over Precedent, HLS student Aarushi Solanki discusses involuntary commitment laws for psychiatric patients in Massachusetts, where the process of holding separate commitment and treatment hearings winds up denying patients access to timely treatment.

Can the presence of legal counsel at a criminal justice defendant's first court hearing transform their journey through the justice system? Two Texas counties examined this possibility in a now-completed A2J Lab study. Project researchers discuss the results in this Proof Over Precedent episode.

Image by Courtney Chrystal, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Access to justice via government websites should mean ease of digital access to information. But what if your simple search on filing for a restraining order returned lists of forms in legalese or 37 pages of links to weed through for the appropriate form? In this Student Voices episode of Proof Over Precedent, J.D. candidate Spencer Thieme argues for simple and inexpensive upgrades to state and federal government websites to improve accessibility for the nonlawyers and non-government workers. Read the corresponding blog post. Speakers: Spencer Thieme, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Rachel Barkin, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Resources mentioned: E-Government Act of 2002 United Kingdom government website Official California website Hick’s Law Fitts’s Law Share feedback and relevant topics you would like the A2J Lab to discuss: a2jlab@law.harvard.edu Stay connected with the Access to Justice Lab: Email newsletter Facebook BlueSky Instagram LinkedIn YouTube Support the A2J Lab Proof Over Precedent cover art by Courtney Chrystal

Early this year, the A2J Lab was expanding globally for the first time, bringing its mission to study access to justice to both Kenya and Tunisia when a federal stop work order abruptly shut down the project. In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, we have no study results to report about the project that intended to look at whether prompt access to quality representation affects legal and social outcomes for defendants in misdemeanors in the two African nations. Instead, we offer a discussion on the Lab's first global project, the intentions of the study and its progress through January this year, and the lessons learned from both an international project and the discontinuation of the study.

Image by Felicia Quan, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School More bankruptcy cases were filed in 2024 than all other civil cases in federal court combined – a factor that should make access to the bankruptcy filing process a priority in the U.S., HLS student Joe Liberman argues in this Student Voices podcast. Part II of this series discusses potential reforms, including changing attorney fee structures, simplifying the bankruptcy process, and making information about legal representation more accessible. Read the corresponding blog post. Listen to Part 1 of the podcast or read Part 1 of the blog post. Speakers: Joe Liberman, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Aarushi Solanki, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Resources mentioned: Chapter 7 – Bankruptcy Basics Chapter 13 – Bankruptcy Basics Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 Share feedback and relevant topics you would like the A2J Lab to discuss: a2jlab@law.harvard.edu Stay connected with the Access to Justice Lab: Email newsletter Facebook BlueSky Instagram LinkedIn YouTube Support the A2J Lab Proof Over Precedent cover art by Courtney Chrystal

Is the financial reset system too difficult to navigate? In this “Student Voices” episode of Proof Over Precedent, HLS J.D. candidate Joe Liberman discusses the complexities and accessibility issues associated with "no-money-down" bankruptcy filings that often hurt the people who can least afford these particular filings.

A recently launched A2J Lab study examines the effectiveness of an education and community resource-focused program at reducing recidivism among low-level offenders. The results could determine whether the program, already in practice for seven years in Toledo, OH, could be an affordable blueprint for other municipal court systems.

Image by Felicia Quan, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School In this “Student Voices” episode of Proof Over Precedent, HLS J.D. candidate Rachel Barkin discusses the challenges faced by pro se litigants in complying with civil procedure rules. While interpretation of legal language may be an obstacle, she argues that deployability–the ability to effectively use legal knowledge in court–is the more significant hurdle for self-represented litigants. She delves into the quantitative and qualitative research available for addressing the complexities of legal procedures, suggesting that a balance of both may be necessary for a complete understanding of the issues. Read the corresponding blog post. Speakers: Rachel Barkin, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Leanne Poarch, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Aarushi Solanki, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Resources mentioned: Testing Ordinary Meaning, Harvard Law Review Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change, Cambridge University Press Self-Help, Reimagine, Indiana Law Journal Share feedback and relevant topics you would like the A2J Lab to discuss: a2jlab@law.harvard.edu Stay connected with the Access to Justice Lab: Email newsletter Facebook BlueSky Instagram LinkedIn YouTube Support the A2J Lab Proof Over Precedent cover art by Courtney Chrystal

In this Proof Over Precedent episode, the third show in the 'Demystifying IRBs' series, host Jim Greiner meets with IRB expert Shannon Sewards to answer the tricky question: Who counts as a 'human subject'? Legal researchers need to know about IRBs and how they define ‘human subjects’ and IRBs need to know about legal research and the role of participants in the studies.

This "Student Voices" episode of Proof Over Precedent discusses the critical need for providing legal representation in civil cases—particularly those in which an individual's home, family, or safety is at risk. While the right to counsel already extends to criminal cases in both federal and state courts, it does not currently extend to civil cases, where the socioeconomic outcomes often affect women more so than men. HLS LLM Laura Aquino asks why civil cases are not treated with the same level of importance as criminal cases and argues that expanding legal access is a matter of both fairness and justice.

This "Student Voices" episode of Proof Over Precedent discusses the critical need for providing legal representation in civil cases—particularly those in which an individual's home, family, or safety is at risk. While the right to counsel already extends to criminal cases in both federal and state courts, it does not currently extend to civil cases, where the socioeconomic outcomes often affect women more so than men. HLS LLM Laura Aquino asks why civil cases are not treated with the same level of importance as criminal cases and argues that expanding legal access is a matter of both fairness and justice.

In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, host Jim Greiner talks with the A2J Lab’s Renee Danser about the recently completed pilot study referred to as the “Eviction Diversion Study.” The study aimed to combat housing security by providing legal information and resources to at-risk populations in the Houston area via text messaging. Ultimately, insights gained from the pilot highlighted the need for and promise of a full-scale study on light-touch intervention as a means of avoiding evictions. Read the corresponding blog post. Speakers: Resources mentioned: Share feedback and relevant topics you would like the A2J Lab to discuss: a2jlab@law.harvard.edu Stay connected […]

Image by Courtney Chrystal, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School In this “Student Voices” episode of Proof Over Precedent, HLS student Andrew Reed explores how the legal profession could benefit from adopting data-driven, evidence-based practices similar to those in medicine. The episode examines the historical transformation of medicine from tradition-based to science-based and discusses key lessons that law can learn, including: prioritizing hard evidence over tradition incorporating evidence-based methodologies into legal education creating centralized databases for legal research Read the corresponding blog post. Resources: James Lind’s scurvy experiment History of evidence-based medicine Cochrane Collaboration Speakers: Andrew Reed, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Share feedback and relevant topics you would like the A2J Lab to discuss: a2jlab@law.harvard.edu Stay connected with the Access to Justice Lab: Email newsletter Facebook BlueSky LinkedIn YouTube Support the A2J Proof Over Precedent cover art by Courtney Chrystal

In this second episode in the Proof Over Precedent series on demystifying institutional review board process in law, host Jim Greiner speaks again with IRB expert Shannon Sewards, this time to define human subjects research and differentiate it from medical research.

In this Student Voices episode of Proof Over Precedent, J.D. candidate Andrew Reed discusses courthouse cell phone bans including unintended consequences, potential solutions to cellphone disruptions, and an opportunity for empirical studies on the topic.