Michigan Law Students Design AI Tools to Simplify Court Access for Unrepresented Litigants
Twenty law students at the University of Michigan built eight AI-assisted prototypes this semester to address barriers in the legal system. Working with courts, legal aid organizations, and nonprofits, the students identified concrete problems and designed tools to help people navigate complex processes without lawyers.
The clinic, directed by Professors Vivek S. Sankaran and Bridgette A. Carr, held a showcase where students presented their work to judges and stakeholders. The event served a dual purpose: demonstrating what students built and giving legal professionals a chance to consider how these tools might serve their communities.
A Web Tool for Parenting Time Schedules
Three students partnered with the 17th Circuit Court in Kent County, Michigan, where thousands of unrepresented parents file incomplete motions for parenting time each year. The team built a guided web interview that walks users through Michigan's 12 best-interest factors and generates court-ready documents.
The tool covers practical details: pickup times, holiday assignments, transportation, and snow day protocols. It includes an AI chatbot that explains legal terms like "plaintiff," "defendant," and "moving party"-concepts that confuse self-represented litigants.
Judge T.J. Ackert of the Kent County Family Division said at least half of his domestic relations litigants represent themselves. "Self-represented litigants are nervous and intimidated when they come to the court," Ackert said. "They're not familiar with legal language or statutes or court rules, and that tends to narrow what they say when they should be more explanatory."
Ackert observed hearings during the students' research phase. He said the tool gives self-represented litigants better access to motions and helps them understand the factors they need to address. "I think it provides better information to the courts," he said.
Emergency Parental Authority Forms for Immigrant Families
Another team learned that immigrant parents facing detention or deportation often need Delegation of Parental Authority (DOPA) forms-documents that give someone temporary legal authority to care for and make decisions for a child. Parents frequently make errors on these forms, especially in crisis situations, due to legal complexity and language barriers.
The students built a multilingual tool that asks structured questions, validates answers, and generates a ready-to-sign document in plain language. It explains what an attorney-in-fact is, what a notary is, and where to find one.
Team member Ari Calem said the tool could serve a broader audience than originally intended. "It was cool to come out on the other end and see, oh, this could actually impact so many people on top of the community that we're first trying to help," Calem said. Parents traveling without their children also need DOPA forms, expanding the tool's potential use.
A Guardianship Forms Tool
A third team worked with the Genesee County Legal Resource Center on a tool for guardianship forms-long, complicated documents that a paralegal typically spends an hour helping someone complete. The tool allows the center to serve more people and is already being deployed.
Rachel Hawrylo, director of the center, said she plans to continue using it. "I think it's amazing, and I definitely think it needs to continue," she said. "It can help a lot of people."
Addressing AI Skepticism Head-On
The students acknowledged their tools' limitations, including the risk that people might treat them as legal advice. Attendees also raised concerns that AI simply speeds up existing processes without reducing the actual burden on courts and legal aid organizations.
Professor Carr addressed this directly. "If all we do is shove a bunch more work in, as a profession, lawyers are going to be deeply unhappy," she said. But when filing a motion becomes more efficient, judges may feel less frustration reading handwritten documents. "We really hope that these tools actually give us a chance to be more human with each other," Carr said.
That framing shifted the perspective of student Karma Karira, who entered the clinic skeptical of AI. Carr and Sankaran proposed that "AI, used thoughtfully, can absorb the procedural and repetitive work that lawyers do and make us better advocates and have us listen more, notice more, slow down," Karira said.
Danielle Kalil, director of civil justice and the judiciary at the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, praised the student work. "You all have actually made the system more navigable for people in real ways," she told the students, contrasting their approach with the typical legal system response: "We're not going to break down the complexity-we're just going to give you more information about it."
For legal professionals looking to understand how AI can improve practice, the clinic's work offers a practical case study in applying technology to real access-to-justice problems. See more on AI for Legal and explore how AI impacts paralegals, who often handle the document work these tools automate.
Professor Sankaran said the showcase's real goal was planting seeds. "The students showed what's possible; now our partners are thinking about how AI might help them tackle challenges they face every day. That's exactly the kind of conversation we set out to spark."
Your membership also unlocks:
