Proof Over Precedent
Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School
The Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School discusses the work of bringing credible evidence to lawyers, judges, and decision makers, to transform the U.S. justice system into an evidence-based field. We bring you weekly one-on-one interviews with experts in the area of access to justice -- researchers, lawyers, professors, law students, data analysts, research participants, and anyone who has an interesting role in this growing area.
Episodes
Episode 71: When and How to Study Attorney Influence in Asylum Cases
It helps to have a lawyer in court, no question. But in immigration court, where the vast majority of individuals are self-representing and not enough immigration lawyers exist to represent them all anyway, is there a point in asylum proceedings where an attorney could be most effective at supporting due process for clients?
Episode 70: Exploring a Lawyer's Impact on Immigration Proceedings
No counsel, worse outcomes in immigration proceedings? This week on Proof Over Precedent, Access to Justice Lab Faculty Director and occasional podcast host Jim Greiner interviewed two Vera Institute of Justice researchers, Jacquelyn Pavilon and Neil Agrawal, about their study measuring the effect of a lawyer in detained 240 removal proceedings in Chicago Immigration Court. Did individuals with legal representation see a greater likelihood of relief, temporary relief, or bond hearings and releases than those without lawyers? The discussion follows both research methodology and adherence to due process.
Episode 69: Study Interrupted—In-Person v. Remote Hearing Modalities
We like to use Proof Over Precedent as a platform to highlight our evidence-based findings, as well as others' studies, from randomized control trials in the field of law. This is not one of those times. In this week's episode, Professor Jim Greiner talks with the A2J Lab researcher and data analyst who spent years working on our Online Courts study about the disappointment, frustration, and lessons learned from a flawed RCT. They still managed to glean a takeaway from comparing remote and in-person hearings for self-represented litigants in family court.
Episode 68: Evaluating Procedural Fairness in Court and on Zoom
Self-represented litigants primarily measure procedural justice by whether they had a voice, were listened to, and were treated fairly in court. Do these basic marks of overall satisfaction differ between the mode in which the hearing took place though? This week's Proof Over Precedent episode features an interview with justice reform consultant Emily LaGratta and Nathanael Player, former director of the Utah State Court Self-Help Center, about a study looking at litigants' perception of fairness in their respective experiences with either remote or in-person court.
Are Death-Qualified Juries Qualified?
Jury selection should aim for a balanced and thoughtful panel; in capital cases, that balance is further underscored. This week's "Student Voices" post argues that "death-qualifying juries"--the practice of excluding jurors who oppose the death penalty--disrupts that balance. Those constitutional guarantees of impartiality, equality, and reliability? Not so ensured with practice. Reform options, however, are not so simple.
Episode 67: Capital Jury Selection's Hidden Biases
Serving as a juror fulfills one's civic duty to ensure a system of checks and balances in the U.S. In capital cases, however, "death qualification" ensures that prospective jurors opposed to the death penalty will not have the opportunity to perform this civic duty. This week's Proof Over Precedent episode features a "Student Voices" interview with Megan Byrne of the ACLU's Capital Punishment Project to discuss the shortcomings of less diverse juries due to race, gender, and religious differences. It also looks at a capital case in Kansas in which the courts examined the problems associated with death qualification and the death penalty overall.
Episode 66: Heirs' Property's Fragile Hold on Land Ownership and Justice
Just because an individual may own property, does not guarantee that the person may keep that property—that’s the warning stemming from this week's podcast episode featuring an interview with Dr. Kara Woods, research analyst at Alcorn State University’s National Policy Research Center. Issues may arise from heirs property—co-owned land in which the name of the original, and now deceased, owner is still on the deed. Land loss due to heirs property issues affects groups disproportionately by race and class, and the policy protections against it are inconsistent across states. The ensuing legal hurdles mark a barrier that some families cannot overcome. One takeaway: Communicate with your family members!
Episode 65: Access vs. Efficiency—Supreme Court Weighs Frivolous Filings
"Martinizing", the controversial Supreme Court practice of denying court fee waivers for indigent litigants, is meant to reduce frivolous filings, but at what cost? This episode looks at the January 2026 Howell order in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenting voice against Martinizing indigent prisoners. Her argument reignites the perspective that access to justice and the potential for future meritorious claims should outweigh workload relief.
Episode 64: Can AI Resolve Brazil's Judicial Backlog?
More than 100 million pending cases await Brazil courts, so it may not be surprising that the country's Supreme Court Justice has a reportedly rosy view of AI in the court system, especially in time-sensitive civil and criminal matters. The potential for AI to help alleviate the backlog and potentially bring more balance and less bias may brush over the possible system errors and human rubber-stamping that come with it. This "Student Voices" podcast discusses Brazil's use of AI in the court system and the areas ripe for more scrutiny--evaluations through RCTs and metric-based learning models.
Episode 63: Texas Two-Step Bankruptcy--Corporate Restructuring or Legal Loophole?
The Texas Two-Step is a fairly simple dance, but in the world of corporate bankruptcy, it's the name of a sophisticated maneuver that some profitable companies employ to stop mass tort liabilities and limit the settlements due to victims. It splits a company and strategically divides its assets and liabilities. In this manner, the companies win and the tort victims, by comparison, lose. But there may be reason for cautious optimism. Proof Over Precedent interviews bankruptcy scholar and law professor Melissa Jacoby about the practice, the reasons courts allow it, and the avenues under consideration for making bankruptcy a more just and exceptional option for corporations.
Episode 62: Navigating Immigration Law Post-Trump v. CASA
Trump v. CASA did not directly address immigration and birthright citizenship when it ruled against universal injunctions, and yet...The aftermath of the ruling left the immigration law landscape in a tailspin. This week's Proof Over Precedent episode interviews Katie Taylor, Legal Director of the Neighbors Immigration Clinic (Lexington, KY), where the practice has shifted its role now that the state houses eight immigration detention centers. She provides a frontline view of the scramble that immigrants and the clinics supporting them face without nationwide relief.
Episode 61: The Promise and Pitfalls of Active Judging
Pro se litigants have reason to hope for a better civil courtroom experience with active judging. If done right, this reform promises more clarity and mercy for those unfamiliar with legal procedures, and better fact-finding and balanced evidence for judges overseeing the cases. This week's Proof Over Precedent episode discusses the potential for reform, what's holding judges back from fully adopting it, and the procedural and legislative changes necessary to support both judges and pro se litigants in fairer, more efficient civil hearings.
Episode 60: Beyond Gideon—Rethinking Access to Justice
Is it time for an inquisitorial legal system? How about a redesigned "lawyer-less" court? This isn't the wild west of the legal world, but rather a lively discussion among three access to justice advocates on the merits–or rather shortcomings–of a push for a civil right to counsel and possible alternatives to closing the access to justice gap. Join Law Professor Benjamin Barton (University of Tennessee), The Honorable Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and our own A2J Lab director and Harvard Law School Professor Jim Greiner in this week's Proof Over Precedent episode.
Episode 59: Legal Aid on the Front Line of Immigration
When it comes to immigration, the legal aid sector has pivoted its resources from affirmative relief for immigrants to defense deportation and detention center intakes. In this "Student Voices" podcast, the discussion between fellow Harvard Law School J.D. candidates Andrew Garcia and Emily Irigoyen, the latter of whom co-leads the Harvard Immigration Project, ranges from the fallout of this shift in immigration legal aid resources to the shortcomings of typical immigration proceedings and the need for family preparedness planning.
Episode 58: Labor Innovations Bridge Access-to-Justice Gap for Immigrants
Labor movements have had to get creative when it comes to labor justice for immigrant workers. That's where worker centers fill the niche not covered by traditional labor unions. In this Proof Over Precedent episode, HLS Professor Sharon Block, executive director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy, discusses the difference between the two labor organizations, the future of the two, and the vital role collective action plays in advocating for justice.
Episode 57: Libraries and AI—Partners for Accessible Justice?
In this "Student Voices" episode, HLS student Grace Gao interviews Ari Scourtas, Product and Research Manager of the Library Innovation Lab at Harvard Law School, about making AI legal tools accessible for people facing digital barriers. The discussion covers legal AI's risks and opportunities for self representation and the expanding role libraries play in bridging the knowledge gap around AI.
Episode 56: The Conflicting Sides of Police Procedural Protections
This bonus episode of Proof Over Precedent looks at the access to justice issues around the Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights (LEOBR) statutes and contract provisions that grant police officers enhanced procedural protections during internal misconduct investigations. At odds are the tensions between public accountability and officers’ claims of needing protection from false accusations. HLS student Strong Ma proposes a randomized controlled trial to study the effects on investigation outcomes, civil litigation, and perceived fairness.
Episode 55: Navigating Workplace Justice Through an AI Lens
Workplace justice issues take center stage in this Proof Over Precedent "student voices" episode focused on Reclamo AI, an AI chatbot, developed to help workers--especially immigrant communities -- address wage theft and find local advocates. Joshua Medina, legal director for Pro Bono Net's JusticiaLab, shares insight on the transformation of the tool, including its efforts to protect user privacy and to avoid unauthorized practice of law.
Episode 54: Will Clearing a Criminal Record Lead to Happiness (and Housing)?
"My criminal record doesn't reflect who I am anymore." This sentiment overwhelmingly topped the list of reasons why expungement study participants wanted to clear their record that it seemed plausible to predict that clearing one's criminal record would lead to higher levels of life satisfaction. Likewise, it did not seem far-fetched to assume individuals without a criminal record would fare better in obtaining housing than those with one. In both cases though, the A2J Lab and Kansas Legal Services found surprising results to refute these assumptions.
Episode 53: Expungement Expectations vs. Reality in Employment
The A2J Lab's randomized control trial on expungement examined the uptake and obstacles of criminal record clearing while also looking into its effect on various socio-economic outcomes. This week's Proof Over Precedent episode gathers study researchers to discuss the "surprising and depressing" findings on expungement's effect on employment. They also dive into explanations for the stark difference between individuals' optimism and reality in the experiment.
Episode 52: Study Exposes Complex Criminal Record Clearing Process
Is the form-filling expungement process as easy for unrepresented individuals as some believe? In this week's Proof Over Precedent episode, host Jim Greiner welcomes the A2J Lab team involved in our long-running Kansas-based study looking at the current record-clearing process and its obstacles. The results offer clear evidence for what it takes for a successful expungement.
Episode 51: How Lawyers and Rental Assistance Impact Eviction Cases
Facing an eviction, a tenant has to decide if the added expense of an attorney is worth it for the possibility of avoiding an eviction judgment. In a discussion of a randomized controlled trial outside the A2J Lab, Faculty Director Jim Greiner talks with economists Aviv Caspi and Charlie Rafkin about when, why, and whether lawyers make a difference in evictions cases. The study coincided with a government emergency housing fund that expired during the RCT, which helped answer how lawyers can best make a difference as well.
Episode 50: Pro Se Litigants, AI, and the Future of Legal Assistance
State bar associations typically file more UPL complaints than consumers. Given the intended aim of protecting consumers, UPL may actually be serving more as an obstacle and less as a protection for consumers using generative AI in the legal space. That's the argument Wake Forest Law Professor and UPL expert Ellen Murphy makes in the latest Proof Over Precedent episode, where she identifies the legal industry's progress with AI regulation by state and how AI and human counseling may combine to be the strongest access-to-justice resource.
Episode 49: AI and the Future of Legal Aid—Navigating Unauthorized Practice
The low cost and accessibility of AI make it a potential game changer for pro se litigation and the future of affordable legal aid. But with the patchwork of state unauthorized practice of law (UPL) rules and no court resolution on AI's UPL liability, it also faces an uncertain future as a legal tool. HLS students tackle the issue in the latest Proof Over Precedent and distinguish between legal information and legal advice—a key to general-purpose AI's future in law.
Episode 48: Legal Evolution from Auto Clubs to Access Barriers
When the organized bar association faced financial strain during the Depression, it cracked down on low-cost legal service providers via auto clubs like AAA, contributing to today's access-to-justice gap. In this "How did we get here?"-style episode, HLS student Andrew Reed interviews Stanford Professor Nora Freeman Engstrom and University of Chicago Fellow James Stone about their research and the "revolution" taking place in many states to reform the legal profession.
Episode 48: Legal Evolution from Auto Clubs to Access Barriers
When the organized bar association faced financial strain during the Depression, it cracked down on low-cost legal service providers via auto clubs like AAA, contributing to today's access-to-justice gap. In this "How did we get here?"-style episode, HLS student Andrew Reed interviews Stanford Professor Nora Freeman Engstrom and University of Chicago Fellow James Stone about their research and the "revolution" taking place in many states to reform the legal profession.
Episode 47: How Does Interrogation Room Design Impact Legal Outcomes?
How likely would you be able to answer questions under duress seated in a hard chair in a windowless, flourescent-lit box of a room? What about in a larger space with natural lighting and comfortable seating? In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, HLS student Spencer Thieme discusses interrogation rooms and the effect of a physical environment on stress, memory, disclosure, and false confessions. She also considers potential randomized controlled trials for studying interrogation room design.
Episode 47: How Does Interrogation Room Design Impact Legal Outcomes?
How likely would you be able to answer questions under duress seated in a hard chair in a windowless, flourescent-lit box of a room? What about in a larger space with natural lighting and comfortable seating? In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, HLS student Spencer Thieme discusses interrogation rooms and the effect of a physical environment on stress, memory, disclosure, and false confessions. She also considers potential randomized controlled trials for studying interrogation room design.
Episode 46: Upsolve in Depth—When does Legal Explanation Become Illegal?
The role of trained nonlawyer volunteers is at the center of a back-and-forth court case between nonprofit Upsolve, Inc. and Letitia James, attorney general of the state of New York. This "Student Voices" episode tackles both the access to justice issues at stake for indigent defendants in debt collection cases, as well as New York's unauthorized practice of law statute governing the decision(s), including the most recent ruling by the New York District Court in March. When a service akin to legal and procedural translation is measured against the practice of law itself, it leaves access to justice in an uncertain state.
Episode 45: Proof and Property—Is Civil Forfeiture a Just Practice?
In this week's Proof Over Precedent episode, we look at civil forfeiture—law enforcement's seizing and relinquishing of property based on probable cause in a criminal connection—and the impact it has on individuals, including innocent third-party owners. With no guaranteed right to counsel for these cases, most individuals never challenge forfeitures; the barriers are simply too high. Limited research means the practice of civil forfeiture is ripe for a study that goes beyond its impact on potential for future crime and expands to due process.
Episode 44: Chief Judge Wilson's Family Court Vision—Problem Solving the Present Over Punishing the Past
In this "Student Voices" episode, HLS J.D. candidate Matthew Hohmann interviews Hon. Rowan Wilson, Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, about the challenges facing litigants in New York Family Court, a topic he focused on in his 2026 State of the Judiciary address. Hear about his holistic, long-range view in approaching family court cases.
Episode 43: Navigating Child Custody Challenges From Behind Bars
This week's "Student Voices" episode of Proof Over Precedent explores access to justice issues for incarcerated parents in the child welfare system. HLS student Mia Robertson looks at the process of removing a child from a home, working toward permanent placement and/or reunification, and the numerous barriers an incarcerated parent faces in custody cases, from an inability to show up for in-person hearings to a lack of reliable communication with an attorney (if they have counsel representation at all).
Episode 42: Can Financial (and Other) Support Help Reduce Child Welfare Involvement in Neglect Cases?
This week, Proof Over Precedent speaks with Melody Webb, Founder and Executive Director of the Mother's Outreach Network, a Washington, DC-based racial justice and anti-poverty organization that the Access to Justice Lab partnered with in its Mother Up pre-pilot study. Webb shares her vision for the study—which looks at providing Black indigent mothers with guaranteed income to support their children in an effort to reduce child welfare agency involvement—and offers perspective on the preliminary findings from the pilot.
Episode 41: How Evidence-Based Research Could Transform the Child Welfare System
A2J Lab Director and Professor Jim Greiner sat down with five A2J Lab staff members to discuss "Mother Up", a DC guaranteed income pre-pilot program with Mothers Outreach Network for Black mothers with recent CFSA involvement. The privately funded program explored how feasible it would be to conduct a larger study on the subject of guaranteed income, but this episode of Proof Over Precedent looks into why the Lab got involved with the program, how we gathered and analyzed data to apply to future evidence-leading studies, and what we're seeing with results so far.
Episode 40: EmPwR Study–How Financial Support Means Family Support
The Empower Parents with Resources Study is the largest randomized control trial of the effect of unrestricted cash gifts on child maltreatment in the United States. Researchers aim to find out if a reduction in financial stress equals a reduction in child welfare involvement. In this week's Proof Over Precedent episode, HLS J.D. candidate Julia Saltzman interviews researcher William Schneider, who explains the broad impact the study may have on families, caseworkers, and child welfare policy.
Episode 39: On the Medical-Legal Collaboration Pioneering Child Welfare Solutions
If poverty can sometimes appear as neglect within a family, would better social and legal support help prevent unnecessary child welfare involvement? An Access to Justice Lab ongoing randomized controlled trial aims to find out. This episode gives a research partner's point of view to the trial.
Episode 38: Fair or Foul--AI in Medicine and Law
In this week's Proof Over Precedent episode, HLS J.D. candidate Strong Ma discusses how public perceptions of fairness influence the adoption of AI and algorithms in medicine and law, two industries with varying levels of support and trust in AI. The podcast includes interviews with HLS Professors Jim Greiner and Jon Hanson weighing in on AI's strengths and shortcomings in law, particularly as it compares to human decision making.
Episode 37: Navigating Pretrial Risk Assessments and Cash Bail Reform
Is ending cash bail a path to a fairer justice system? California attempted this route in 2018 with its SB10, which would have ended cash bail statewide and replaced it with pretrial risk assessment. The effort could potentially have avoided a two-tiered, wealth-based system, but it fell short with voters. This "Student Voices" episode of Proof Over Precedent dives into the debate over cash bail, what went wrong with the SB 10 campaign, and lessons for future bail reform efforts.
Episode 36: Record Clearing Insights: How Data Can Impact Policy
This episode of Proof Over Precedent looks at predictive modeling research that could be used alongside policy research to answer the question, "What can we do to increase the number of criminal records cleared?" Researchers examined existing data on automatic record sealing in Pennsylvania and petition-based expungements in Kansas and adjusted criteria that could contribute to more effective record clearing. In the process, they made surprising discoveries on the state and future of criminal record clearances.
Episode 35: Legal Hurdles in Expungement: A Kansas Case Study
In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, the criminal record clearing process gets a close-up examination. Researchers and a former field partner at Kansas Legal Services discuss an expungement study in Kansas that reveals the numerous, and sometimes prohibitive and illogical, steps it takes for an individual to clear a record – a task made exponentially more difficult and less likely to succeed without the aid of legal representation.
Episode 34: Studying the Expungement Paradox
Expungement appears to have all the signs of promising policy including better job and housing outcomes for individuals whose criminal records have been cleared; low recidivism rates; and subsequently better societal outcomes. Where it falls short, researchers in a Michigan study found, is with accessibility and uptake. This episode of "Proof Over Precedent" looks at the findings and dives into the challenges of studying expungement and the areas where the record-clearing process could be improved.
Episode 33: Are Federal Regulations Protecting Prisoners or Paralyzing Research?
This episode of "Proof Over Precedent" brings together IRB Director Shannon Sewards and A2J Lab Faculty Director and podcast host Jim Greiner to talk about the complexity of ethical research involving incarcerated individuals and the balance between maintaining those ethical standards and advancing social and behavioral research. The discussion also delves into the differences between protections for biomedical research and those for behavioral research.
Episode 32: Arbitration vs. Litigation -- Who Benefits?
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.
Episode 31: Life Without Parole—a Death Sentence in Disguise
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.
Episode 30: Do Judges Actually Read Search Warrants?
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.
Episode 28: Pretrial Detention Efficacy and Alternatives
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.
Episode 27: The Hidden Costs of Pretrial Detention
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?
Episode 26: When is Informed Consent Unnecessary?
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: [email protected] 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
Episode 25: Legal Labyrinths Reveal Divorce Filing Woes
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: [email protected] 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
Episode 24: Till Death—or an Affordable Divorce—Do Us Part
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: [email protected] 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