Month: July 2025

Legal technology promises to streamline processes, expand access to representation and demystify the law. Yet too often our tools mirror the narrow priorities of those who fund them: speed, scale and efficiency at the expense of fairness. When we treat justice like an assembly line, it becomes no surprise that the most marginalized still fall through the cracks. For legal tech to genuinely serve society, we must begin by centering human dignity over metrics.

Reframing Efficiency – Tools for People, Not Profits

From e‑filing systems that crash under the weight of evidence to automated forms that gloss over nuance, our current crop of legal tech solutions is obsessed with throughput. Efficiency matters—but only after we ask: for whom are we making things efficient? If speed simply helps corporations and courts process more cases while self‑represented litigants remain confused, we are reinforcing existing hierarchies. True innovation begins when we prioritize the needs of the least resourced and design interfaces that are intuitive for a grandmother navigating eviction or an immigrant appealing a visa denial.

Designing with Empathy – Serving the Disadvantaged

In Islamic philosophy there is a saying: “Your rank is determined by how you treat the weakest among you.” That wisdom applies to technology as well. Our most successful platforms will be those that speak the language of those with the most to lose. This means co‑creating with community defenders, social workers and former litigants to ensure every button, prompt and resource meets real‑world challenges. It means translating legal jargon into plain language, offering multiple languages and accessibility modes and testing with people who have never used a smartphone. When we design for the margins, everyone is brought closer to the center.

Transparent, Explainable AI – Building Trust

Artificial intelligence is finally permeating legal services. Natural language models can draft motions, classify discovery and predict case outcomes. But AI, like human judges, is fallible. When we automate without explanation, we risk entrenching hidden biases. That’s why explainability must be a foundational requirement. Users deserve to know why a recommendation was made, what data informed it and how to contest it. By opening the black box, we invite critical scrutiny and empower clients and attorneys to check and refine their tools. Transparency isn’t antithetical to innovation—it is the bedrock of trust.

Empowering People – Tools for Agency, Not Replacement

The goal of legal tech shouldn’t be to replace lawyers with code or to sidestep the court’s role. Rather, it should expand agency. Imagine a tool that helps someone prepare for a hearing by simulating questions from a judge, or an AI that surfaces relevant case law so a public defender with a heavy caseload can focus on strategic thinking. When technology amplifies human ingenuity and dignity instead of displacing it, it becomes a force for justice. We must resist the lure of fully automated decision making and instead build assistive technologies that partner with practitioners and clients alike.

A Humble Path Forward

In a world that idolizes disruption, humility seems quaint. Yet humility is essential when we deal with lives and livelihoods. No single platform will solve the law’s inequities, and every line of code we write carries unforeseen consequences. We must constantly question our assumptions, solicit feedback from those impacted and be willing to iterate—even scrap and start over—when our creations do not live up to our ideals. The soul of legal tech lies not in flashy features but in our willingness to learn and adapt.

Looking Ahead

Legal technology is at a crossroads. We can continue chasing efficiency metrics and venture‑capital valuations, or we can choose to cultivate tools that reflect our highest values: justice, compassion and shared understanding. The latter path is slower and often less glamorous. It requires deep listening and interdisciplinary collaboration. But it also offers the possibility of a future where the law is no longer a labyrinth accessible only to the privileged few. That is the vision worth building toward.

This piece originally appeared on LinkedIn. Read the conversation and share your thoughts there.

Rethinking LegalTech’s Purpose

Much of the hype around legal technology has revolved around speed, automation, and efficiency. Startup pitch decks are littered with promises to reduce billable hours and streamline workflows. Those gains are valuable, but we must ask: who benefits from faster processes if the system they serve remains inequitable?

Legal tools should do more than digitise old hierarchies. At JuristAI we believe technology should amplify fairness and widen access. The law exists to uphold rights and protect the vulnerable; a legal‑tech product worthy of the name ought to do the same. Our innovations are guided not by flashy metrics but by an insistence that every person, regardless of resources, can meaningfully engage with the system.

From Automation to Empowerment

Automation can lighten workloads, but empowerment comes when technology teaches and guides. In our research we found that many clients struggle not with forms but with understanding their own rights. We design tools that don’t just fill in blanks but explain why each field matters. A user who understands the process is better able to advocate for themselves and others.

Consider a tool that drafts a simple contract. An efficiency‑focused design might simply spit out a document. A justice‑oriented design explains key clauses in plain language, flags potential risks, and suggests questions to ask a lawyer. It leaves the user not only with a document but with knowledge.

Designing for Those at the Margins

Too often legal apps are built for attorneys and well‑resourced clients. We invert that perspective. Our design process starts with people who are least served: those who cannot easily afford counsel, who live far from legal clinics, or who face language barriers. When you build for the margins, you create solutions that everyone can use. Simplicity, clarity, and accessibility become not just nice‑to‑haves but core requirements.

We incorporate community feedback, user testing with diverse audiences, and multilingual support. We measure success not by revenue alone but by how many previously unserved individuals can now navigate a process independently.

Transparency and Trust

AI systems are only as good as the data and assumptions behind them. If a user cannot see how an algorithm made a recommendation, they have little reason to trust it. That’s why our products prioritise explainability. We make it clear when a suggestion comes from a trained model versus a rules‑based checklist, and we provide links to resources where users can learn more. Transparency builds trust, and trust is the currency of any legal tool.

Walking Humbly into the Future

As technologists and legal professionals, we hold great power to shape how justice is delivered. This power demands humility. We must remain open to critique, to learning from those on the front lines of legal aid, and to adapting as laws evolve. Our goal is not to replace lawyers or judges but to support the human relationships at the heart of the law.

Looking Ahead

LegalTech is at a crossroads. It can entrench inequity by automating existing processes, or it can become a force for social equity by reimagining how legal services are delivered. At JuristAI we choose the latter. Every line of code, every design decision, and every deployment should answer a simple question: Does this make the world more just?

This piece originally appeared on LinkedIn. Join the conversation there to share your perspectives and ideas.

The promise of legal technology isn’t simply about making courts faster or contracts easier. At its best, legaltech is about restoring balance in systems that have long favored the privileged and well‑resourced. For Ali Mohammed, CEO of JuristAI, the mission isn’t to automate lawyers out of a job; it’s to give more people access to justice.

The problem with “efficiency first”
Many of the tools built for law over the past decade have chased efficiency at the expense of fairness. Machine‑learning models learn from past court decisions, and if those decisions reflect racial or socio‑economic bias, the software will magnify those injustices. Paperwork automation can push people through complex processes without giving them a moment to breathe or understand their rights. Without a human‑centered compass, legaltech risks becoming another barrier rather than a bridge.

Design for the least resourced person in the room
Human‑centered design begins with empathy. At JuristAI, this means starting each product conversation with the most vulnerable user in mind: the defendant who can’t afford a lawyer, the immigrant navigating visas without fluent English, the small landlord who can’t hire a big firm. By designing for the least resourced, we end up serving everyone better. Interfaces are clearer. Explanations are written in plain language. The software guides users through legal concepts without condescension.

Transparency and explainability
Artificial intelligence is only as trustworthy as the explanations that accompany it. That’s why a human‑centered platform needs to demystify its recommendations. If an algorithm recommends a particular defense strategy, it should show the legal precedents and statutes it relied on. When we ask users to trust a machine, we owe them an explanation they can understand. This isn’t just good design; it’s an ethical necessity in a field where the stakes can include someone’s freedom.

AI as a tool for empowerment
For Ali Mohammed, legaltech is most powerful when it empowers ordinary people. JuristAI’s tools help public defenders sift through discovery faster so they can spend more time with clients. They help small businesses generate contracts without paying prohibitive fees. They translate complex rights into interactive checklists that fit on a phone screen. Instead of replacing human judgment, AI amplifies the capacity of those who already fight for justice.

Building with humility and partnership
No single founder or company can reimagine the legal system alone. JuristAI seeks input from legal aid attorneys, community organizers, scholars and people who have been through the system. Listening to those voices reveals gaps and blind spots that aren’t visible from a boardroom. A human‑centered approach requires humility: recognizing that technology is just one part of a larger ecosystem of reform.

Looking ahead
As regulators and the public become more aware of the dangers of unchecked AI, legaltech must show a different path forward—one that prioritises people over profit. Companies like JuristAI can lead by example, proving that you can build scalable technology while honoring the dignity of those it serves. This is not a call to slow innovation but to infuse it with ethics, compassion and transparency.

Ali Mohammed’s vision for legaltech is simple yet transformative: tools that support attorneys and empower clients while never losing sight of the human stories at the heart of every case. As the industry evolves, the measure of success won’t be how quickly we can draft a contract, but how well we can uphold justice for all.

This article originally appeared on LinkedIn. Read the conversation and share your thoughts there. (We’ll update with the link soon.)

Introduction: The Soul of Law

The law is, at its core, a moral compass. At its best, it guides societies toward justice, equity, and accountability. Yet anyone who has spent time in a courtroom—or waited months for a simple legal form—knows how far our systems often fall short. The problem is not merely procedural inefficiency; it is the gradual erosion of empathy in the practice of law. In the rush to optimize billable hours, many legal tech solutions have prioritized speed over substance. As a founder in the legal tech space, I believe our tools must reflect the heart of the law, not just its mechanics.

The Promise and Peril of Automation

Artificial intelligence has already transformed industries from finance to healthcare. In the legal domain, AI can draft contracts, analyze case law, and predict litigation outcomes faster than any human. This promises unprecedented access to justice: individuals and small businesses can navigate complex statutes without paying exorbitant fees. However, it also raises ethical questions. Algorithms reflect the biases of their creators and datasets. If we are not careful, we will embed systemic inequities into code and amplify them at scale.

The temptation is to view legal tech purely as a productivity tool—a way to do more work, faster. But if we use automation to accelerate unjust processes, we only deepen existing problems. Our goal should be right‑sized justice, not just efficiency.

Designing for Equity

At JuristAI, we approach product design by asking a simple question: Who does this help? In criminal defense, for example, the difference between a comprehensive brief and a hastily assembled one can be the difference between freedom and incarceration. That is why our flagship product, AtticusAI, is not just a chatbot; it drafts full motions and briefs and includes error‑detection and contextual awareness. We built it to empower public defenders and pro‑se litigants who lack access to large law firms.

Technology alone cannot solve the justice gap, but it can level the playing field. By offering affordable tools that embody ethical principles—transparency, fairness, and respect for human dignity—we can make the law more humane. For instance, we train our models on diverse data to avoid replicating narrow cultural perspectives. We also incorporate explainability features so users understand how conclusions are reached, fostering trust rather than blind deference to “black boxes.”

Lessons from Philosophy and Faith

As a student of Islamic thought and Western philosophy, I often draw parallels between legal ethics and spiritual ethics. The Qur’ān enjoins believers to “stand firmly for justice, even against yourselves” (4:135). Aristotle wrote that the law should be reason “free from passion.” Both traditions remind us that rules without moral imagination are empty. In designing legal tech, we must imbue our algorithms with what philosophers call practical wisdom—the ability to apply general principles to particular circumstances with compassion and discernment.

This does not mean making machines “feel.” It means acknowledging that the people affected by our code are more than data points. When we reduce individuals to case numbers, we strip them of humanity. A soulful legal tech platform recognizes the stories behind the statistics.

A Call to Builders and Lawyers

I write this not as a condemnation of innovation but as a plea for deeper purpose. The next generation of legal tech must be built by diverse teams: engineers, jurists, ethicists, and yes—poets. We need people who understand that the rule of law is ultimately about lives. If we center that truth, we can create tools that do not merely expedite legal tasks but restore faith in the legal system itself.

To my fellow builders: ask how your code changes someone’s experience of justice. To my colleagues in law: embrace technology as a partner, not a threat, but hold technologists accountable to ethical standards. Together, we can ensure that the march toward automation leads to greater fairness, not further alienation.

Conclusion: Toward a Humane Future

The legal profession stands at a crossroads. We can choose a purely mechanistic path, automating away humanity in the name of speed. Or we can harness technology to amplify the moral voice of the law. I believe the latter is not only possible—it is necessary. Let us build with soul, so that the arc of innovation bends toward justice.