AI & Access: Building a Civil Rights Case Without a Lawyer

We filed a federal lawsuit against SHRA without legal representation. What we had instead was documentation, determination — and AI tools that helped us bridge the access gap.

But it didn’t start that way. We began this journey completely alone.

Before AI: Barriers, Not Help

We tried everything we could to get help through traditional channels:

  • We contacted Legal Services of Northern California (LSNC) — they told us they could read us back the court rulings, but didn’t have the resources to help us draft the complaint, motions, or discovery.
  • We cold-called dozens of attorneys, all of whom declined to take our case.
  • We attended Pro Se help days at the Eastern District of California — only to be rushed through brief sessions with lawyers who were mostly seeking criminal defense clients.
  • We reached out to national housing and disability rights groups — most of whom either don’t assist individuals or said they lacked the capacity.

With no legal help and no guidance, the early stages of the case went poorly.

  • SHRA’s attorneys ignored our Rule 26 requests, sent letters explicitly saying they would continue to do so, and told us to withdraw motions demanding discovery.
  • The magistrate judge sided repeatedly with defense arguments — including claims unsupported by the record and unrelated to the timeline of the original complaint.
  • Our filings were dismissed as inadequate or unstructured, even when the legal issues were valid.

The case was looking grim — until we began using AI tools.

What AI Helped Us Do

  • Draft legal pleadings and opposition briefs
  • Research housing and disability rights law
  • Organize timelines and evidence
  • Format filings to meet federal court requirements
  • Track deadlines and discovery
  • Understand court rules and procedural traps

We didn’t use AI to replace legal reasoning — we used it to understand, structure, and survive a process that is fundamentally hostile to anyone without formal training.

Why This Matters

Courts, agencies, and nonprofits often talk about “access to justice” — but for many of us, that access doesn’t exist in practice.

  • Legal aid systems are overwhelmed or unwilling
  • Pro bono programs are sparse and selective
  • Self-help clinics are geared toward eviction defense or small claims — not federal civil rights cases

AI gave us just enough leverage to fight back.

Responsible Use

We don’t copy-paste AI output. We cross-check citations. We verify everything. We write, edit, and rewrite until we’re confident that the arguments hold up.

This case was not built on shortcuts. It was built on persistence and tools — just like the agencies that try to out-resource the people they harm.

A Future for AI in Public Interest Law

We believe AI can:

  • Empower tenants and disabled individuals to assert their rights
  • Help small nonprofits serve more people with fewer resources
  • Make complex legal frameworks legible and navigable

But it must be:

  • Transparent
  • Human-guided
  • Focused on equity, not automation

We’re now building a nonprofit to make these tools more accessible — and more ethical — for those left behind by the legal system.

Want to help us build it? Reach out here.

Scroll to Top