The Hon. James Francis's career has been marked by his dedication to human rights and his innovative use of technology in the legal field, which has significantly advanced equality and access to justice, particularly through the integration of AI and GenAI to improve court efficiency and bridge the digital divide
The post is part of a limited series of blog posts and podcasts presented by the Thomson Reuters Institute, Revolutionizing Rights: AI and the Future of Legal Equality, that will provide perspectives on the use of AI in the legal sphere
Our childhood experiences frequently influence our identities, even if we don’t fully grasp their significance in the moment. One such moment — when a young “Jay” Francis was sitting with his family in the back of the bus when public transportation was still segregated — left a profound impact on him. As he grew into an adult, he came to comprehend the immense importance and implications of those actions. Years later, he would become the Honorable James Francis, serving as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of New York, including a two-year term as Chief Magistrate Judge, until his retirement in 2017.
Judge Francis’s formative years, including high school activism, guided him to clerk for the Hon. Robert L. Carter, the attorney in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case. This experience deepened his commitment to equality and significantly influenced his legal career choices, eventually shaping his specialty in practice and leading him to pursue a judicial appointment.
Upon retiring from the bench, Judge Francis continues his work in Alternative Dispute Resolution, and his passion also drives him to stay abreast of technological advancements in the judicial field.
Utilization of AI
Similar to many judges, Judge Francis makes a distinction between artificial intelligence (AI) and generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), acknowledging the current and significant value AI brings to certain court functions, such as computer-assisted research, spell-check, grammar review, and similar tasks. Judge Francis also recognizes the future necessity of AI in the legal field; however, he emphasizes the importance of thoroughly vetting any AI tools before they can be fully integrated into court operations.
His perspective begins with the utilization of AI and computer-assisted learning, which eliminates the laborious task of shepardizing cases using hardbound books to search for other cases that cited a specific case and their treatment of that case. This arduous task has been obviated by AI-driven search methods, which enable a more comprehensive and efficient search process. Tools like this make the court more efficient overall and contribute greatly to access to justice, Judge Francis explains, adding that it is imperative to make sure that courts capitalize on these tools.
When assessing the value of AI and GenAI as instruments for advancement, it is evident that their impact will be substantial, he continues. With adequate preparation, these tools can replace a retiring administrative workforce and enable individuals to transition into more technical and skilled roles, resulting in overall cost savings and improvements in the legal system.
However, as the system progresses, it seems apparent that there will not be significant changes in how people interact with the court. “AI is not going to fundamentally change the way that people communicate with the court,” Judge Francis says. “Certainly, lawyers are going to be careful about what they submit to the court, so even if there’s AI in the background, I don’t think that a court would necessarily recognize a change in the way [the communications are] being presented.”
The digital divide
When considering AI and GenAI improvements to efficiency and cost savings, however, it is also important to consider the digital divide. Judge Francis notes that there are two distinct digital divides that currently exist: one based on sophistication, and another based on economics. The sophistication divide arises from differences in the comprehension and usage of new technologies; and the economic divide stems from the lack of financial resources needed to access or utilize these new technologies.
The gap in sophistication persists due to differences in education and the user-friendliness of certain technological tools or platforms. Some AI tools are accessible to everyone, while others demand the use of complex software or specialized training. This disparity can make these technologies harder to use for those with limited interaction with such complex systems, he says.
The economic gap, on the other hand, is much more fundamental. Individuals without the financial wherewithal often times do not have the ability to take advantage of AI-driven tools, no matter how basic. This applies to individuals who lack access to the internet or smartphones. No matter how productive and user-friendly any new options are, they are useless to the individual who has no way to access them, Judge Francis adds.
Fortunately, there is a market-based solution to both divides. As new advanced tools are developed, people will get better at using them, which, in turn, will bring the sophistication divide closer together. There will also be more products introduced into the market that will help make these products more accessible and affordable, decreasing the digital divide.
Conclusion
The Hon. Judge Francis’ career has been centered on ensuring equality and access to justice. For others to achieve comprehensive justice, it is crucial for them to stay abreast of technological progress, he explains, especially as AI and GenAI continue to consistently demonstrate their worth. These innovations will eventually propel courts into a future that ensures a higher standard of justice.
You can hear more insights from Judge James Francis on a special edition of the Thomson Reuters Institute Insight podcast, on Spotify.
