In a striking experiment with potential implications far beyond academia, the University of North Carolina School of Law recently conducted a simulated trial using artificial-intelligence “jurors” to assess the fate of a fictional defendant. As this event demonstrates, while AI tools may bring novel advantages to legal processes, they also raise deep questions about fairness, human judgment and the future of dispute resolution.
The Experiment: AI in the Jury Box
In the simulation, chatbots developed by leading AI companies, including ChatGPT, Grok and Claude, served as jurors in a mock trial of “Henry Justus,” a juvenile defendant in an unarmed robbery case. The AI jurors reviewed the prosecution’s arguments, the defense’s case and witness testimony, ultimately reaching a “not guilty” verdict. According to the organizers, the AI models followed the law accurately and demonstrated strong attention to factual and legal details.
The Promising Side: Efficiency and Focus
One of the clear advantages of using AI jurors is their capacity for rapid information processing, consistency and neutrality (at least in theory). The organizers noted the AI models “got the law exactly right” and appeared to consider the key facts in the case fairly. For complex civil or administrative proceedings, where voluminous records and analytics are required, AI could serve as a tool to reduce human error or fatigue, assist judges in summarizing evidence, and streamline parts of the decision-making process.
The Limitations: Lack of Human Sensibility
Yet the experiment also exposed significant drawbacks. The AI jurors lacked the ability to interpret nonverbal cues, gauge the credibility of witnesses via body language, emotional responses or background context.
One professor remarked that it “felt as though the AI jury was debating something casual — whether or not to order coffee or tea, rather than deciding whether a person deserves to lose his liberty.” Because of their inability to perceive and factor in human nuances, AI systems currently fall short of fully replicating what human jurors bring to the courtroom.
Implications for Legal Practice and Business
For law firms, corporations and legal departments, this experiment is a clarion call to explore, but with caution. On one hand, AI may eventually assist in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), contract review, case triage or early-stage mediation. The organizers foresee that “parties might be tempted to eventually rely on something like this to settle cases” rather than endure full trials.
On the other hand, deploying AI without safeguards raises risks: algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, insufficient human oversight and questions about due process.
Businesses considering the use of AI in claim evaluations, internal investigations or compliance decision-making must ensure clear human oversight, documented processes, and transparency around how the AI reached its conclusions. Failing to do so could undermine fairness, lead to reputational damage, or even jeopardize enforceability of decisions.
Conclusion
The UNC law school’s AI jury experiment underscores a major shift on the horizon for dispute resolution, but it also highlights that the legal profession is still navigating uncharted territory. If your organization is considering integrating AI into its legal, compliance or decision-making workflows—or if you need guidance on how to structure AI-driven processes that respect fairness, transparency and human oversight—our firm is ready to assist. Contact Romano Law today for a consultation and ensure that your AI strategy aligns with both innovation and responsibility.
Contributions to this blog by Kennedy McKinney.