Access to Justice

May 5, 2026

Interpretability and Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG): How They are Reshaping AI Legal Research

Artificial intelligence is now woven into the daily fabric of legal work. From case law research to contract analysis and compliance monitoring, AI systems are accelerating tasks that once required hours of manual review. But as these tools become more capable, the legal profession faces a central challenge: How can lawyers trust AI in high‑stakes environments where accuracy, transparency, and defensibility are non‑negotiable?

Two concepts have emerged as foundational to answering that question: interpretability and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). While distinct, they work together to create AI systems that are transparent, grounded in evidence, and aligned with professional legal standards. Although both have existed for some time, their integration into legal research remains in its infancy, and there is much to learn. This post explores how these systems are reshaping AI legal research based on a review of current industry sources.

Understanding Interpretability in Legal AI

April 17, 2026

AI in Criminal Justice: Principles and Practice

by David Badertscher

As artificial intelligence rapidly enters the criminal justice system (shaping everything from policing strategies to judicial decision-making) the need for clear guidance has become increasingly urgent. Two recent publications from the Council on Criminal Justice provide a timely and authoritative response:

Principles for the Use of AI in Criminal Justice
https://counciloncj.org/principles-for-the-use-of-ai-in-criminal-justice/
Assessing AI for Criminal Justice: A User Decision Framework
https://counciloncj.org/assessing-ai-for-criminal-justice-a-user-decision-framework/

September 7, 2025

Executing the Incompetent? Rethinking U.S. Supreme Court Standards on Mental Capacity

by David Badertscher

Executive Summary

This article examines whether the Supreme Court’s current standards for determining competence to be executed adequately protect individuals with severe cognitive impairments and mental illnesses. While landmark decisions , Ford v. Wainwright (1986), Panetti v. Quarterman (2007), and Madison v. Alabama (2019) , established that a person must possess a rational understanding of the connection between their crime and punishment, critics argue the framework remains unclear, inconsistently applied, and insufficiently protective.

The case of Ralph Menzies, a Utah death row inmate suffering from vascular dementia, illustrates these concerns. Despite serious cognitive decline and an inability to comprehend his punishment, Utah continues to pursue his execution. The Court’s standard leaves wide discretion to the states, creating procedural disparities, frequent “battles of the experts,” and significant hurdles for inmates, who bear the burden of proving their own incompetence.