The High-Tech Future of Courts: A.I. Risk Assessment, VR, and More to Come

Compared to other industries, technology is slow to impact the legal system in major ways. In general, high-profile technologies apply most prominently to professional fields like health and computer science, but that does not mean that technology leaves other professional fields untouched. Since about the 2000s, computer technology has changed the legal industry by making administrative and pretrial processes faster, more accessible, and more eco-friendly. More recently, technological advancements have prompted legal reform and raised speculation about the future of legal decisions. Some of these reforms are already affecting Tennessee courts, bringing both supporters and critics. Other technology-based reforms, while either cost-prohibitive or not yet enacted, are still only being discussed as possibilities. In all these cases, the face of the court system is changing, and attorneys of all practices need to be prepared for an evolving landscape.

Pre-trial Risk Assessment Algorithms

Perhaps the most recent high-profile use of technology in the legal system is in bail reform. The introduction of algorithm-based pretrial risk assessment across the country is an attempt at removing bias from the system, and after several years, experts are still debating its efficacy.

Although implemented across many states and major cities, there are no unified guidelines for implementing predictive algorithms, and the algorithms can vary widely according to region. As such, legal professionals and reform advocates alike take issue with the way these algorithms are designed and marketed within the industry. Many critics, including those in Tennessee, note that the algorithms continue to show the inherent bias of their creators; for example, Tennessee Senate Bill 67, which passed in May of 2021, states that a magistrate “must consider any available results of a validated pretrial risk assessment conducted regarding the defendant for use in the jurisdiction and the defendant’s financial resources.” However, guidelines pertaining to the creation of such algorithms are left unaddressed, and detractors – particularly House Minority Chairman Vincent Dixie – went on record claiming such algorithms are “inherently bias” because they may use where people live, level of education, and their parents’ marital status, and more when making assessments.

Some courts have chosen not to rely specifically on algorithms due to these accusations of bias and, instead, are

(continued on page 24)