Credible, Not Always Correct: How Reddit Users Verify AI-Generated Legal Advice

Dhyey Mehta; Rebecca Owens; Stergios Aidinlis; Tu\u{g}rulcan Elmas; Yusuf M\"ucahit \c{C}etinkaya

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Credible, Not Always Correct: How Reddit Users Verify AI-Generated Legal Advice

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that AI-generated legal advice acquires practical force not from its accuracy but from the social production of credibility, and it shows that most Reddit users act on such advice without any reported verification.

desk verdict Good descriptive map of how Reddit users narrate verifying (or not) AI legal advice, with a useful new concept in 'distributed counsel' — but the abstract's causal claim outruns the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13369 v1 pith:D44KHIEU submitted 2026-08-13 cs.CY

Rebecca Owens , Yusuf Mücahit Çetinkaya , Stergios Aidinlis , Dhyey Mehta , Tuğrulcan Elmas This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CY

keywords largelanguagemodelslegaladviceaccesstojusticecredibilityverificationRedditdistributedcounselself-help

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Large language models are becoming a default source of legal help for people priced out of formal legal services, and this paper asks whether such advice is ever checked before someone acts on it. Analyzing 153 first-person Reddit narratives and 5,341 community reactions, it finds that verification is the exception: only about one in six posts reports independent checking, and about one in five routes the advice through community scrutiny. In the majority pattern, users act because the output sounds lawyer-like, specific, and reassuring, not because its legal content has been validated. The paper's central claim is that the practical force of AI-generated legal advice depends on the social production of credibility rather than on accuracy, and that this arrangement pushes the burden of verification onto lay users least equipped to bear it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the lawyer-like form of LLM output, together with an ideal type the authors name distributed counsel: an LLM generates advice, a lay user directs and applies it, and a platform community evaluates it before action. Defined as an ideal type rather than as the modal case, distributed counsel is the fullest expression of the pattern the paper charts; the surrounding spectrum runs from no verification, through cross-model triangulation, to community scrutiny. The paper also isolates AI as emotional infrastructure, where the system sustains engagement in high-stakes disputes, which may raise trust while lowering scrutiny. What these mechanisms share is that credibility is attributed to the text's register, specificity, and reassurance, not to any check on its legal content.

What would settle it

A representative follow-up study that asks lay users about offline verification within days of using an LLM for a legal problem, or that observes actual behavior through app telemetry or browser logs, would settle it: if most users in such a sample did verify against an authoritative source, the paper's central claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is a mismatch between how legal credibility is normally produced and how it is produced in AI-assisted self-help. In the professional setting, licensure and liability back the advice; here, the advice arrives already wearing the marks of authority, fluent, specific, professionally phrased, and is acted on without any independent check. The authors define an ideal-type configuration they call distributed counsel, where an LLM generates advice, a lay user directs and applies it, and an online community evaluates it, and they find it in a minority of threads; triangulating across multiple models is another minority practice. Most narratives report no verification at all, and the paper reads this silence as the finding: credibility has been decoupled from correctness. Even concrete benefits, such as a landlord waiving a fee after receiving a lawyer-style letter, are attributed to the form of the language rather than to the soundness of the claims it contains.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on reading silence as absence: when a Reddit post does not mention verification, the paper counts the action as unverified; if many users actually checked with a lawyer, an official website, or a second source offline, the 'mostly unchecked' conclusion would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A large share of legal self-help now runs on outputs that users themselves never verify, so documented failure modes such as fabricated citations and invented court addresses can drive real steps in real disputes.
Reddit itself is part of the infrastructure: technology forums attract 15.6 times more reactions per post than legal forums, so the evaluations most users see skew toward support rather than legal scrutiny.
Because favorable-outcome narratives are most common when the opposing party is also unrepresented and least common against represented opponents, AI self-help widens participation without changing the underlying hierarchy of outcomes.
The supportive-to-skeptical ratio in these threads has reversed over time, from 0.77:1 in 2023 to 1.83:1 in 2025–26, indicating growing acceptance of AI-assisted legal self-help as an ordinary practice.
Emotional support is a distinct AI role in 11.8% of narratives, and the same reassurance that sustains engagement in stressful cases may also reduce the incentive to verify.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the paper is right, improving model accuracy will not by itself make lay legal self-help safer; the binding constraint is the absence of a verification layer, so interventions such as requiring citations to named sources or surfacing legal-community scrutiny would target the actual mechanism.
The silence-based measure is an upper bound on unverified action, and a natural test is to compare telemetry or follow-up interviews against the Reddit narratives; if offline verification is common, the redistribution claim weakens even though the credibility-by-form account may survive.
The same credibility mechanism should generalize to other platforms with different affordances: on short-video or ephemeral platforms, the lawyer-like form cue may be weaker and authenticity doubts stronger, which would change how and whether verification happens.
One open question the data raises but cannot answer is whether community scrutiny in distributed counsel actually improves legal outcomes; a causal comparison of threads with and without such scrutiny would tell whether the community layer is a genuine safety net or just another credibility signal.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Have you seen the Owens et al. paper on Reddit and AI legal advice? The one worth taking from it is the empirical map: across 153 first-person narratives, most users report no verification of AI-generated legal advice, and a smaller group triangulates across models or routes the advice through a community for scrutiny. That last configuration, 'distributed counsel', is the genuinely new idea, and it's a good one — it names an arrangement that prior accuracy-audit work missed.

The methods are solid. The coding pipeline is described in enough detail to reproduce, the inter-annotator stats are reported honestly (κ = 0.66 on stance, Jaccard 0.75 on validation behavior), and the authors triangulate the LLM-based reaction classification with a keyword dictionary and human annotation. They also repeatedly acknowledge the big caveat: the numbers bound reported verification, not verification itself. Section 2.5 and Section 6 both say this in plain language. The Galanter-style power-asymmetry finding — self-reported favorable outcomes drop from 50% against unrepresented opponents to 25.8% against represented ones — is a nice empirical echo of the 'haves come out ahead' pattern.

The soft spot is exactly what the reader and the stress test flagged: the abstract and Section 5 outrun the data. 'The practical force of AI-generated legal advice depends not on its accuracy but on the social production of its credibility' is a causal claim, and the study never measures accuracy, never varies it, and never compares it against a counterfactual in which the advice is accurate but not lawyer-like. For all we know, users fail to verify because they assume the model is accurate — which would make accuracy a background condition, not an irrelevant one. The paper's own more careful statements in Section 2.5 ('captures only the absence of reported verification') and Section 6 (upper/lower bound framing) are actually fine; the problem is the headline not carrying the caveat.

There's also a minor selection issue: Reddit narrators may omit offline checks, and favorable-outcome stories probably over-represent the successful cases. The authors acknowledge both. None of this sinks the descriptive contribution — the paper's own framing as a study of narrated verification practices is defensible. It's the abstract that needs to be pulled back into alignment with the evidence.

Who gets value from this: anyone studying access to justice, human-AI interaction, or platform credibility. It deserves a serious referee; I'd send it out, but with an explicit request to revise the abstract and the conclusion so the causal claim is presented as a hypothesis, not a finding.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes 153 first-person Reddit narratives and 5,341 community reactions to examine how lay users verify AI-generated legal advice. It introduces the concept of "distributed counsel" to describe a sequence in which an LLM generates advice, a lay user directs and applies it, and a platform community evaluates it. The paper reports that only 17.3% of narratives mention independent verification and 19.6% submit AI-generated output for community evaluation, while the majority of narratives are silent on verification. It argues that users act on AI-generated legal advice because it reads as lawyer-like, specific, and reassuring, and it interprets this as an informal infrastructure that redistributes verification work and legal risk onto lay users.

Significance. If limited to its descriptive claims, the paper makes a useful empirical contribution: it documents a spectrum of verification practices, introduces a memorable and analytically useful concept in "distributed counsel," and shows that community scrutiny is unevenly distributed across legal and technology forums. The coding pipeline is careful and honestly reported: inter-annotator agreement statistics are given, the LLM-based classification is triangulated with keyword dictionaries and human annotation, and the authors explicitly acknowledge selective disclosure and upper-bound limitations. The qualitative material on emotional infrastructure and lawyer-like form is suggestive and well grounded in the narratives. The weakness is that the abstract and discussion state a causal claim about accuracy that the observational design cannot support, and this claim is load-bearing for the paper's headline contribution.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and §5] The abstract states that "the practical force of AI-generated legal advice depends not on its accuracy but on the social production of its credibility," and §5 states that "The Reddit users examined here mostly do not verify AI-generated legal advice." These statements are stronger than the measurement supports. Section 2.5 and Section 6 explicitly state that the classification captures only the absence of reported verification and that the unverified share is an upper bound on genuinely unverified reliance; the authors note that checking may have occurred offline. Because a Reddit post is a selective genre, and because verification with a lawyer, a statute, or a second source is precisely the kind of routine step a narrator may omit, the absence of reported verification is not evidence of the absence of verification. The headline claims should be qualified to "reported verification" throughout, including the abstract and conclusion, or the paper should present direct evidence about offline verification behavior.
[Abstract, §5, and §4.3.3] The claim that practical force "depends not on accuracy" is a causal counterfactual that the data cannot test. The study contains no accuracy measure for the AI-generated advice, and there is no condition under which accuracy varies while lawyer-like form is held fixed. Users may fail to report verification because they assume the LLM is accurate; under that reading, accuracy is a necessary background condition of practical force rather than a dispensable one. The evidence supports a descriptive claim about narrated verification practices and credibility attributions, not the counterfactual claim that the same advice with different accuracy would have the same practical force. The authors should either remove or substantially soften the causal claim, or test it with a design in which accuracy and form are varied independently (e.g., a 2x2 experiment measuring verification behavior and willingness to act).
[§2.5 and §3.3.1] The operationalization of "distributed counsel" requires that community feedback could shape the user's decision, but the data cannot distinguish whether community evaluation actually changed behavior or merely ratified a decision already made. The narrative sequencing may make the community appear more causally influential than it was. This caveat is partly present in the coding rules but is dropped in the Discussion, where distributed counsel is described as a configuration in which the community "scrutinizes, flags errors, and contests" the advice. The authors should state explicitly that distributed counsel is identified from narrative sequence, not from evidence of causal influence on the user's subsequent actions.

minor comments (5)

[§3.2] The screening description says the keyword filter reduced the comment set to 377, but the analysis later uses 5,341 associated community reactions; please clarify whether the 5,341 reactions are all comments on the 153 canonical posts or only those that passed the initial keyword filter.
[Author byline] The author name "Tu˘grulcan Elmas" appears to contain a typo; it should likely read "Tuğrulcan Elmas."
[§4.3.3] The text says favorable narratives outnumber adverse ones "by roughly 20 to 1" and that "just over two-thirds report a favorable outcome," but the percentages in Table 4 imply a favorable-to-adverse ratio closer to 15.7:1 and a favorable share of about 40% among posts with a determinate outcome; please reconcile the text with the table.
[Table 1 and §4.2.2] The text reports 584 supportive reactions while Table 1 lists 583; the discrepancy is likely rounding, but the numbers should be consistent.
[§2.2] The phrase "the formal institutions that have historically performed that work is partially absent" contains a subject-verb agreement error; it should be "are partially absent."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's conclusions rest on coded Reddit narratives, with self-citations only in background and explicit upper-bound qualifications; the interpretive leap from silence to absence is a validity concern, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain, fitted parameters, or mathematical identities that could be circular. Its central empirical claims are based on coded Reddit narratives and reactions, with human validation of the coding and explicit acknowledgement that the absence of reported verification is an upper bound on genuinely unverified reliance. The step from 'narratives are silent on verification' to 'users mostly do not verify' is an interpretive inference about evidence, not a definitional equivalence: the authors repeatedly qualify that unobserved offline checking may have occurred, which shows they are not treating the coding category as identical to the behavioral conclusion. The self-citations (Elmas, 2026; Mehta et al., 2026; Yüce et al., 2026) are background or illustrative and do not carry the paper's load-bearing argument. The reflexive use of Gemini for reaction classification is acknowledged, triangulated with keyword dictionaries, and benchmarked against expert annotations, so it does not reduce the findings to the model's own outputs. The skeptical concern that the causal claim about accuracy being irrelevant outruns the data is a measurement and construct-validity issue, not a circularity issue. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No statistical model parameters are fitted; the analysis is qualitative with descriptive percentages. The load-bearing assumptions concern the validity of self-reported Reddit data and LLM-assisted coding, both of which the paper acknowledges. The concept "distributed counsel" is an interpretive label for an observed pattern, not an invented explanatory entity.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Reddit posts and comments in the six sampled subreddits are authentic first-person accounts of actual LLM-assisted legal work.
The entire corpus rests on this premise. Bot/spam filters and author screening reduce but cannot eliminate fabricated, promotional, or role-played accounts. See Section 3.2.
domain assumption Absence of reported verification in a Reddit post is informative about actual verification behavior.
The paper explicitly labels its figures as upper and lower bounds, but the central finding that "mostly it is not verified" depends on reading non-disclosure as evidence of non-verification. See Sections 2.5 and 6.
domain assumption LLM-assisted stance classification and human coding provide a sufficiently reliable representation of community reactions.
Inter-annotator agreement is substantial for stance (kappa 0.66), but agreement for the fine-grained risk typology is low (Jaccard 0.36), and the use of Gemini introduces a reflexive bias risk. See Section 3.4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Credible, Not Always Correct: How Reddit Users Verify AI-Generated Legal Advice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D44KHIEU

@misc{pith2026260813369,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Credible, Not Always Correct: How Reddit Users Verify AI-Generated Legal Advice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D44KHIEU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13369}
}

read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by laypeople to resolve real legal problems, against a backdrop of persistent access-to-justice deficits. This article presents evidence that the practical force of AI-generated legal advice depends not on its accuracy but on the social production of its credibility. While existing research has assessed the accuracy of legal AI, less is known about how machine-generated guidance is verified and made credible enough for lay users to act on. Drawing on a dual-method analysis of 153 Reddit narratives and 5,341 community reactions, this article maps a spectrum of verification practices. At one end, a minority of users verify AI-generated legal advice by triangulating across models, and some submit AI-generated guidance to platform communities for evaluation before acting, a configuration we term distributed counsel. Far more commonly, however, narratives are silent on verification. AI-generated legal advice is acted on the strength of its lawyer-like form and emotional reassurance alone. These findings show that AI-assisted legal self-help operates within an emerging informal infrastructure which redistributes the work of verification to those least equipped to bear it.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

[1]

Hastings Law Journal , volume =

Bourdieu, Pierre , title =. Hastings Law Journal , volume =

work page
[2]

European Journal of Comparative Economics , volume =

Chaserant, Camille and Harnay, Sophie , title =. European Journal of Comparative Economics , volume =

work page
[3]

Discover Artificial Intelligence , volume =

Chen, Qingxia , title =. Discover Artificial Intelligence , volume =

work page
[4]

, title =

Cheong, Inyoung and Xia, King and Feng, KJ Kevin and Chen, Quan Ze and Zhang, Amy X. , title =. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages =

work page 2024
[5]

, title =

Cohen, Julie E. , title =

work page
[6]

, title =

Cohen, Julie E. , title =. Global Governance by Data: Infrastructures of Algorithmic Rule, Georgetown University Law Center Research Paper , number =

work page
[7]

and Macourt, D

Coumarelos, C. and Macourt, D. and People, J. and McDonald, H. M. and Wei, Z. and Iriana, R. and Ramsey, S. , title =

work page
[8]

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance for Judicial Office Holders , year =

work page

Show all 64 references

[9]

, title =

Dahl, Matthew and Magesh, Varun and Suzgun, Mirac and Ho, Daniel E. , title =. Journal of Legal Analysis , volume =
[10]

American Journal of Law and Equality , volume =

Doyle, Colin , title =. American Journal of Law and Equality , volume =
[11]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.24287 , year =

Elmas, Tuğrulcan , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.24287 , year =

arXiv
[12]

, title =

Ewick, Patricia and Silbey, Susan S. , title =
[13]

Felstiner, William L. F. and Abel, Richard L. and Sarat, Austin , title =. Law & Society Review , volume =
[14]

Law & Society Review , volume =

Galanter, Marc , title =. Law & Society Review , volume =
[15]

Genn, Hazel , title =
[16]

Asian Journal of Legal Education , volume =

Gupta, Suvrajyoti , title =. Asian Journal of Legal Education , volume =
[17]

, title =

Hadfield, Gillian K. , title =. International Review of Law and Economics , volume =
[18]

Justice System Journal , volume =

Hannaford-Agor, Paula and Mott, Nicole , title =. Justice System Journal , volume =
[19]

2026 , note =

Heitmann, Arthur , title =. 2026 , note =

2026
[20]

Hildebrandt, Mireille , title =
[21]

Bach Commission Report: The Right to Justice , institution =
[22]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09904 , year =

Kant, Manuj and Kant, Manav and Nabi, Marzieh and Carlson, Preston and Ma, Megan , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09904 , year =

arXiv
[23]

and Mulligan, Deirdre K

Kluttz, Daniel N. and Mulligan, Deirdre K. , title =. Berkeley Technology Law Journal , volume =
[24]

Koo, Anna K. C. , title =. Legal Studies , volume =
[25]

The Justice Gap: The Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-Income Americans , institution =
[26]

, title =

Lorek, Laura A. , title =. Ohio Northern University Law Review , volume =
[27]

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , volume =

Lucy, William , title =. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , volume =
[28]

and Ho, Daniel E

Magesh, Varun and Surani, Faiz and Dahl, Matthew and Suzgun, Mirac and Manning, Christopher D. and Ho, Daniel E. , title =. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies , volume =
[29]

UC Irvine Law Review , volume =

McDonald, Hugh , title =. UC Irvine Law Review , volume =
[30]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.05273 , year =

Mehta, Dhyey and Jalilzade, Eldar and Kalameyets, Maksim and Owens, Rebecca and Juarez, Marc and Aidinlis, Stergios and Shi, Lei and Elmas, Tuğrulcan , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.05273 , year =

arXiv
[31]

2025 , note =

AI Action Plan for Justice , institution =. 2025 , note =

2025
[32]

International Journal of Law, Ethics and Technology , pages =

Munir, Bakht , title =. International Journal of Law, Ethics and Technology , pages =
[33]

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies , volume =

Nielsen, Aileen and Skylaki, Stavroula and Norkute, Milda and Stremitzer, Alexander , title =. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies , volume =
[34]

and Blankvoort, Dick A

Pandit, Harshvardhan J. and Blankvoort, Dick A. H. and Shaaban, Adel and Luccioni, Sasha and Birhane, Abeba , title =. The 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages =

2026
[35]

Pasquale, Frank , title =
[36]

Michigan Technology Law Review , volume =

Perlman, Andrew , title =. Michigan Technology Law Review , volume =
[37]

and Sandvig, Christian , title =

Plantin, Jean-Christophe and Lagoze, Carl and Edwards, Paul N. and Sandvig, Christian , title =. New Media & Society , volume =
[38]

, title =

Pleasence, Pascoe and Balmer, Nigel J. , title =
[39]

, title =

Pleasence, Pascoe and Balmer, Nigel J. , title =. Daedalus , volume =
[40]

and Denvir, Catrina , title =

Pleasence, Pascoe and Balmer, Nigel J. and Denvir, Catrina , title =
[41]

, title =

Prescott, James J. , title =. Vanderbilt Law Review , volume =
[42]

International Journal of Clinical Legal Education , volume =

Ryan, Francine and Hardie, Liz , title =. International Journal of Clinical Legal Education , volume =
[43]

, title =

Sandefur, Rebecca L. , title =. American Sociological Review , volume =
[44]

, title =

Sandefur, Rebecca L. , title =. South Carolina Law Review , volume =
[45]

, title =

Sandefur, Rebecca L. , title =. Daedalus , volume =
[46]

and Denne, Emily , title =

Sandefur, Rebecca L. and Denne, Emily , title =. Annual Review of Law and Social Science , volume =
[47]

, title =

Schneiders, Eike and Seabrooke, Tina and Krook, Joshua and Hyde, Richard and Leesakul, Natalie and Clos, Jeremie and Fischer, Joel E. , title =. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , year =

2025
[48]

Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Trustworthy Autonomous Systems , pages =

Seabrooke, Tina and Schneiders, Eike and Dowthwaite, Liz and Krook, Joshua and Leesakul, Natalie and Clos, Jeremie and Maior, Horia and Fischer, Joel , title =. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Trustworthy Autonomous Systems , pages =
[49]

Karen and Huang, Jessica and Liang, Olivia and Kim, Ig-Jae and Yoon, Dongwook , title =

Shen, M. Karen and Huang, Jessica and Liang, Olivia and Kim, Ig-Jae and Yoon, Dongwook , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.13348 , year =
[50]

Fordham Law Review , volume =

Simshaw, Drew , title =. Fordham Law Review , volume =
[51]

Journal of Law and Society , volume =

Sommerlad, Hilary , title =. Journal of Law and Society , volume =
[52]

Sommerlad, Hilary and Harris-Short, Sonia and Vaughan, Steven and Young, Richard , title =
[53]

American Behavioral Scientist , volume =

Star, Susan Leigh , title =. American Behavioral Scientist , volume =
[54]

Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work , pages =

Star, Susan Leigh and Ruhleder, Karen , title =. Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work , pages =

1994
[55]

Deep Automation Bias: How to Tackle a Wicked Problem of AI? , journal =

Strau. Deep Automation Bias: How to Tackle a Wicked Problem of AI? , journal =
[56]

Susskind, Richard , title =
[57]

and Benyekhlef, Karim , title =

Tan, J. and Benyekhlef, Karim , title =
[58]

AI4AJ@ICAIL , volume =

Tan, Jinzhe and Westermann, Hannes and Benyekhlef, Karim , title =. AI4AJ@ICAIL , volume =
[59]

Trinder, Liz and Hunter, Rosemary and Hitchings, Emma and Miles, Joanna and Moorhead, Richard and Smith, Leanne and Sefton, Mark and Hinchly, Victoria and Bader, Kay and Pearce, Julia , title =
[60]

Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals , institution =
[61]

Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics , volume =

Wald, Eli , title =. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics , volume =
[62]

The Methodology of the Social Sciences , editor =

Weber, Max , title =. The Methodology of the Social Sciences , editor =
[63]

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal , volume =

Wentz, Julia , title =. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal , volume =
[64]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.17712 , year =

Yüce, Pelin and Dai, Xiangruo and Owens, Rebecca and Elmas, Tuğrulcan , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.17712 , year =

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Hastings Law Journal , volume =

Bourdieu, Pierre , title =. Hastings Law Journal , volume =

work page

[2] [2]

European Journal of Comparative Economics , volume =

Chaserant, Camille and Harnay, Sophie , title =. European Journal of Comparative Economics , volume =

work page

[3] [3]

Discover Artificial Intelligence , volume =

Chen, Qingxia , title =. Discover Artificial Intelligence , volume =

work page

[4] [4]

, title =

Cheong, Inyoung and Xia, King and Feng, KJ Kevin and Chen, Quan Ze and Zhang, Amy X. , title =. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages =

work page 2024

[5] [5]

, title =

Cohen, Julie E. , title =

work page

[6] [6]

, title =

Cohen, Julie E. , title =. Global Governance by Data: Infrastructures of Algorithmic Rule, Georgetown University Law Center Research Paper , number =

work page

[7] [7]

and Macourt, D

Coumarelos, C. and Macourt, D. and People, J. and McDonald, H. M. and Wei, Z. and Iriana, R. and Ramsey, S. , title =

work page

[8] [8]

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance for Judicial Office Holders , year =

work page