Login | August 03, 2025
What to know about AI and ethical jury selection
SHERRY KARABIN
Legal Tech News
Published: August 1, 2025
Choosing the “right” jurors is one of the keys to winning a case, but doing so is far from an easy task.
As Rochester, New York attorney Nicole Black explains in her recent column in The Daily Record posted on Legal Tech Daily on July 17 (https://www.legaltechdaily.com/2025/07/ethical-jury-selection-in-the-ai-era/), artificial intelligence tools can help an attorney to streamline the voir dire process, and potentially lead to the selection of individuals more sympathetic to the client’s position.
But if the tools rely on biased programming, she said an attorney’s peremptory challenges may be based on discrimination.
In her column entitled “Ethical Jury Selection in the AI Era,” Black discusses rules to keep in mind when utilizing human- or technology-related assistance in the voir dire process.
First and foremost, Black said lawyers must familiarize themselves with American Bar Association Formal Opinion 517.
Published on July 9, she said it provides guidance on ethically selecting juries without engaging in unlawful discrimination, particularly when relying on client input, consultants or software.
Citing Model Rule 8.4(g), she explained that a violation only occurs if the attorney knows or “should reasonably know ‘that the exercise of a peremptory challenge is impermissibly discriminatory.’”
Black stressed that a discriminatory challenge is only prohibited if the class being discriminated against is protected under law.
Accepting input from others, i.e., a client or consultant, during the jury selection process can result in unlawful discrimination, she said.
For example, she said, if an attorney is told that a recommendation to strike is based on race or gender and acts on it, he or she is not protected, adding that the prohibition applies even if “the lawyer does not personally intend to discriminate on the basis of a protected class but may be advancing someone else’s intent to do so.”
Black said the “reasonably should know” standard mandates that attorneys ascertain the reasons behind a peremptory challenge suggestion.
The same standard applies when using software, including AI tools, to make decisions during voir dire, she said.
Black stressed that lawyers have an ethical duty to “conduct sufficient due diligence to acquire a general understanding of the methodology employed by the juror selection program” and avoid using it if there’s reason to believe that it could lead to unlawful discriminatory recommendations.
While lawyers should not allow ethical concerns to keep them from utilizing AI tools in the jury selection process, Black said they should be employed with “insight, integrity, and care.”