During one of our weekly Legaltech Week journalist roundtables recently, we talked briefly about the fact that while there are lots of specialized legal tech tools and AI platforms for much of the legal market, there are precious few such tools directed toward the criminal defense bar.
The reasons for this not only stem from the fact that this market, as compared to other segments, is relatively small but that it has far fewer financial resources. And much of what criminal defense lawyers do day to day hinges on activities that they believe don’t necessarily lend themselves to the use of technology and AI. So when it comes to prioritizing funds or the efforts to get funds, the emphasis is not on technology.
The Market
Looking at the legal market over the past several years, the emphasis has primarily been on large law firms and corporate legal departments. Places where vendors see money to be made. The efforts have focused on tools that can do things like streamline contract review and assist in discovery and review of voluminous documents and multiple deposition transcripts. Vendors have also focused on things like the plaintiffs’ personal injury, immigration, and IP. It’s easy to see that the criminal defense bar has different needs and that the direction and focus of many vendors does not necessarily help criminal defense lawyers.
That’s not to say no vendors are directing efforts toward the criminal defense bar. For example, a company called JusticeText offers tools to review large amounts of body camera footage, jail calls, surveillance video, and other digital evidence. Berkeley Law also maintains a resource catalog devoted to AI tools for criminal defense.
However, that’s about it for specialized tools. The fact is that there just aren’t that many criminal defense customers with the funds to buy a lot of tech and AI stuff.
The Money
Criminal defense is typically practiced by solos or lawyers in small firms. Plus, a large percentage of it is handled by public defenders who are part of a government-funded agency — an agency that is chronically underfunded to begin with. So those in the market simply don’t have the funds to invest heavily in technology and AI. What funds are available, particularly for public defenders, are difficult to obtain. Even trying to obtain them takes a substantial amount of time for lawyers who have enormous caseloads and limited time to chase.
These facts impact lawyers who have to prioritize their efforts for funds for things they believe they desperately need for their day-to-day work. It also impacts the vendors who see that the return on investment for criminal defense tech is not great and that the time needed to obtain that return is significant.
For example, in order to sell products to a large law firm, there is at least a path to a decision, even if it’s longer than it should be. To obtain funds for a public defender’s office involves dealing with politicians who often couldn’t care less about the office. That means approval takes significantly more time and is more questionable. For vendors, it’s also a question of prioritizing needs and efforts.
And vendors see the market as small. There is precious little data to contradict that notion.
It’s A Question Of Priorities
I talked recently to several public defenders about that the priority issue. Their view is that much of what they do hinges on things that AI or technology cannot readily do. It involves frequently talking to people charged with crimes, for example. Many of these people have few resources. Many have substance-abuse problems. Many have little education. Most of them have a mistaken impression of what can or cannot be accomplished in the criminal justice system. Most are frightened and distrust the system and the lawyers who are representing them.
Dealing with these types of people requires some special skills, understanding, empathy, and experience. It involves knowing the audience and knowing how to persuade them to do certain things and accept certain things. Criminal defense lawyers spend their time reading people. It’s a function that AI cannot replicate.
Added to this is the fact that criminal defense lawyers spend much of their time plea bargaining. That too involves skills in dealing not only with clients but also with prosecutors and judges. Most public defenders will tell you that knowing how to navigate the system requires relationships that are built up over time with judges and prosecutors. It involves, again, knowing the audience through experience, spending time drinking crappy courthouse coffee with the same prosecutors, clerks, bailiffs, judges and deputies day after day.
Unlike other segments of the litigation legal market, it is almost entirely local in nature. Rarely do you see criminal defense lawyers from outside a jurisdiction entering an appearance, particularly for run-of-the-mill misdemeanors or even felonies. This, again, puts a premium on knowing the local players and knowing the local jurisdiction. It involves knowing and understanding what juries and judges might do with a given set of facts.
The practice is thus more people-oriented and less document-oriented. There’s little discovery, for example. It doesn’t require significant contract review. It does not involve as many things that AI is good at as matters typically handled by large law firms or corporate legal departments. It does involve things like witness interviews, assessing credibility, and knowing the bounds of what is possible. Again, things that AI is not good at.
Tech Could Help, Right?
Certainly, technology and AI could help criminal defense lawyers, perhaps maybe even significantly. But when it comes time to prioritize funds and efforts to obtain funds, most public defenders and criminal defense lawyers will look more to the people side, not the technology side. When it comes to spending money, it’s often directed toward additional staff — lawyers, investigators, social workers — rather than tech.
Moreover, given the capabilities of general AI products like ChatGPT and Claude, when criminal defense lawyers need AI, they will likely turn there. Would they like to have specialized tools for their practice area? Yes. But again, it’s a question of priorities. The benefits just don’t justify the added expense.
Granted, there is a well-funded segment of the criminal defense bar. Elite white-collar defense practices and large firms often represent corporations and executives in those corporations in investigations and prosecutions that are high stakes. Those firms generally already have the resources to invest in the latest AI and legal technology. This is only a small segment of the market.
So vendors just aren’t all that interested.
The Irony
The irony of all this, of course, is that the stakes for those charged with crimes are often not just money. They are something even more fundamental: liberty. Those charged with these crimes often face significant time in prison, depriving them of fundamental human rights, not to mention their livelihood and their families. Yet, at the same time, those who are specialized in defending them have the fewest financial resources and technology to help them.
It’s a sad state of affairs. But it’s the reality. Somehow, we have convinced ourselves that it’s all OK.
Sadly, I don’t see it changing much anytime soon.
Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes TechLaw Crossroads, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law.