When it comes to consumer protection, signing off on the fine print may equate to signing off certain legal rights and agreeing not to sue a company in court but rather to use arbitration. Does the process actually matter? Several studies find variances in consumer financial relief and win rates, along with potential incentives in mandatory arbitration that could discredit the integrity of the process. The latest "Proof Over Precedent" episode calls for new research to address the shortcomings of existing studies and to provide definitive findings on mandatory arbitration's impact on consumers.

In this "Student Voices" episode, HLS J.D. candidate Kristen Arnold looks at the procedural shortcomings of life sentences without the possibility of parole, particularly in comparison to capital punishment cases. She dives into the injustices of the LWOP procedure, the no-hope consequences for inmates and the system, and opportunity for a randomized control trial in the field to improve fairness.

Despite search warrants being a topic of significant interest in court cases and legal scholarship, the process of obtaining warrants offers comparatively little information. But when researchers found a surprising public data point in this field, their analysis led to sobering findings regarding the time judges spend reviewing warrants and the high approval rates of such warrants. In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, the researchers discuss their work, the data analysis process, and the implications of potentially insufficient judicial review of warrants.

This Student Voices episode focuses on the data and studies pointing to the shortcomings of pretrial detention – the significant costs, lack of impact on reducing crime, and shortage of failure-to-appear connections. HLS JD candidate Leann Poarch instead suggests a low-cost, relatively low-tech alternative that may be more effective.

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

Image by Felicia Quan, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School 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. Listen to Episode 24: Legal Labyrinths Reveal Divorce Filing Woes Read the corresponding blog post. Speakers: 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 Roseanna Sommers, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Tom Ferriss, data scientist, Google Resources mentioned: “Trapped in Marriage”, SSRN “Using random assignment to measure court accessibility for low-income divorce seekers”, PNAS “Divorce in Philadelphia County” brochure Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Family Division Local Rules 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

Image by Felicia Quan, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School 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.  Listen to Episode 25: Legal Labyrinths Reveal Divorce Filing Woes Read the corresponding blog post. Speakers: 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 Roseanna Sommers, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Tom Ferriss, data scientist, Google Resources mentioned: “Trapped in Marriage”, SSRN “Using random assignment to measure court accessibility for low-income divorce seekers”, PNAS “Divorce in Philadelphia County” brochure Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Family Division Local Rules 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

Image by Courtney Chrystal, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School 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, according to HLS student Aarushi Solanki. She outlines the need for a randomized controlled trial to bring evidence to this proposal. Read the corresponding blog post. Speakers: Aarushi Solanki, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Joe Liberman, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Resources mentioned: Rogers hearing Gagnon v. Scarpelli Vitek v. Jones 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

Image by Courtney Chrystal, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School In this “Student Voices” episode of Proof Over Precedent, HLS student Aarushi Solanki discusses involuntary commitment laws for psychiatric patients in Massachusetts. Instead of protecting patient rights, the process of holding separate commitment and treatment hearings winds up denying patients access to timely treatment. A look at global leaders in procedural and substantive mental health reforms could help guide changes in Massachusetts’ legal standards and processes. Read the corresponding blog post. Speakers: Aarushi Solanki, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Leanne Poarch, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Rachel Barkin, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Resources mentioned: Rogers hearing Philadelphia’s Eviction Diversion Program New Hampshire Family Law Mediation Program Italy’s “need-for-treatment” standard 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

Image by Felicia Quan, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School 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. Director Jim Greiner hosts fellow A2J Lab researcher Renee Danser and Texas A&M researchers George Nafault and Bethany Patterson in a discussion about the project results and their potential impact on legal representation and judicial decision making going forward. Read the corresponding blog post. Speakers: D. James 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 Renee L. Danser, Associate Director of Research and Strategic Partnerships, Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School George Naufal, Associate Research Scientist, Public Policy Research Institute, Texas A&M University Bethany Patterson, Research Associate, Public Policy Research Institute, Texas A&M University Resources mentioned: Recognizance Release Order Indigency Determination Texas Indigent Defense Commission Arnold Ventures 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

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

Image by Felicia Quan, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School 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 — and just about half-way through its study — 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 and petty offenses in the two African nations. Instead, the A2J Lab’s Renee Danser shares her experience working on the lab’s first global project, the intentions of the study and the progress it made through January this year, and the lessons learned from both an international project and the discontinuation of the study. Primary takeaway: remain hopeful and persistent as we continue to look for funding to restart the project. Read the corresponding blog post. Speakers: Renee Danser, Associate Director of Research and Strategic Partnerships, Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School Michelle Blouin, Communications Associate, Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School Resources mentioned: International Legal Foundation (ILF) Justice Initiatives Global 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

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

Image by Courtney Chrystal, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School 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.Closer scrutiny to legal fees associated with bankruptcy filings may help steer incentives toward the debtor rather than the attorney working with the filer. Read the corresponding blog post. Speakers: Joe Liberman, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Andrew Reed, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Resources mentioned: Chapter 7 – Bankruptcy Basics Chapter 13 – Bankruptcy Basics Lamie v. United States Trustee ‘Consumer Bankruptcy and Financial Health’, National Bureau of Economic Research ‘How the Bankruptcy System is Failing Black Americans’, ProPublica ‘No Money Down’ Bankruptcy, Southern California Law Review 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

Image by Felicia Quan, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School 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 program has been in practice for seven years in Toledo, Ohio, but has not yet been studied thoroughly. In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, the A2J Lab’s Renee Danser discusses the program and the potential it has, if found to be effective, to serve as an affordable blueprint for other municipal court systems. Read the corresponding blog post. Speakers: Renee Danser, Associate Director of Research and Strategic Partnerships, Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School Michelle Blouin, Communications Associate, Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School Resources mentioned: Toledo Municipal Court press release “Study of Community Diversion Program Launches,” A2J Lab Blog 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

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

Image by Courtney Chrystal, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School 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’? Medical fields can easily point to human subjects in their research; but in social sciences, the definition relies heavily on federal regulations from Institutional Review Boards that require consent from human subjects to participate in research. So, 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. While the previous episode in the ‘Demystifying IRBs’ series addressed human subject research versus medical research, this third episode discusses: Legal regulations that define human subjects in social science research Ethical considerations in applying research to human subjects Hypothetical scenarios to illustrate IRB challenges in interpreting and applying federal regulations Risk assessments for human subjects 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: Institutional Review Board FAQs 45 Code of Federal Regulations Part 46, Subpart A [“Common Rule”] Office of Human Research Protection 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

Image by Courtney Chrystal, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School 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. Read the corresponding blog post. Speakers: Laura Alicia Aquino Arriaga, LLM, Harvard Law School Michael Pusic, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School Resources mentioned: The Gender of Gideon, UCLA Law Review Gideon v. Wainwright Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare, by Dorothy Roberts (2001) 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 Lab Proof Over Precedent cover art by Courtney Chrystal

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.

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.

In this second episode in the Proof Over Precedent series on demystifying the 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.

This week, in the first of a series of podcast talks demystifying IRBs, Proof Over Precedent host Jim Greiner talks with IRB expert Shannon Sewards about the importance of IRBs and the Common Rule in ensuring ethical research practices, particularly as it applies to legal research.

Does the medium of family law cases -- online or in-person -- factor into procedural justice and the satisfaction of litigants in these cases? One U.S. court system wanted to find out. With the study a few months from completion, a third factor has emerged-- litigant choice.

Hypothetical situation (that was real for at least one person): You're issued a traffic ticket requiring appearance in a courthouse 400 miles away from your home. Do you a) absorb the travel costs and skip work to appear in court, b) pay the ticket fine online, if possible, to avoid the hassle, c) hire a lawyer to appear for you, if possible, or d) appear in court via Zoom, if available? The best option seems obvious, but data on Zoom's effect on court hearings and failure to appear rates are still elusive.

Failure to appear in criminal cases can lead defendants to jail time, draining resources from police, courts, and taxpayer dollars. But the solution may be cheaper and easier than expected. A2J Lab Faculty Director Jim Greiner speaks with Alissa Fishbane, managing director at ideas42, about her research into informational gaps pertaining to court-related issues.

Harvard Law School student Julia Saltzman leads a Student Voices episode of Proof Over Precedent to discuss legal information programs amid immigration court proceedings for unrepresented noncitizens. Prior evaluations show they reduce detention rates and save taxpayer money. But what about evidence-based research focused on due process?

In this first Student Voices episode of Proof Over Precedent, Harvard Law School student Michael Pusic proposes a possible solution for the 86% of noncitizens detained in immigration court without a lawyer: Enable non-lawyers with specialized training and experience to represent individuals facing deportation. It's already passed observational tests; now, he says, it's time for a randomized control trial.

This episode looks into the OpenJustice project, a study combining access to justice and artificial intelligence. It's just a year in development but already moving relatively quickly through its randomized control trial.

This episode offers a mid-study update on a decades-long randomized control trial, unofficially referred to as the “Child Welfare” project, which evaluates whether families with children who face poverty-related legal and social challenges can avoid unnecessary entries into the child welfare system with the assistance of holistic legal services – a combination of social worker services and a traditional attorney-client relationship. Take a listen.

This episode introduces listeners to the Proof Over Precedent podcast and the work of the Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School. The lab focuses on bringing empirical research into the legal field for both civil and criminal justice systems.