New Spaces of Justice: A Tribute

Published in

Legal Design and Innovation

11 min readSep 15, 2022

Maybe it is a lawyer thing, but I am rarely at a loss for words. After Virgil Abloh’s passing, however, I did not know what to say or do. As most of you have heard or read by now, the renowned multidisciplinary artist, designer, creator (this list could go on and on) passed away after privately battling a terminal illness.

Many accolades have already been written by designers, artists and musicians. However, there couldn’t be enough accolades to really reflect the depth of Virgil’s work. So I wanted to take this opportunity and spotlight the projects that Virgil did in the legal and justice sphere. I want people to know about his contributions to change our legal system for the better. How he strove to make this world more beautiful, better and fun for all of us.

The Beginning

In typical 2020 fashion, I met Virgil through Instagram. During the height of the Black Lives Matter movement, Virgil put up an Instagram story. He was looking for the most innovative ideas in political science and law. As he mentioned in several conversations afterwards he was looking to find that same underground niche group ready to disrupt the status quo, similar to what he did in the fields of design, art and fashion.

Interestingly, at that point I rarely checked my Instagram stories, but I just remember feeling so frustrated by the state of the world. I was clicking through my stories when I saw Virgil’s post and that one small seed, was the catalyst for one of the most disruptive projects the legal system has seen for a long time.

Through Virgil, I connected with Oana Stănescu. Oana is a groundbreaking architect and designer and one of Virgil’s longtime collaborators. I had never met Oana before this journey, but in hindsight I do remember watching her introduce Virgil Abloh during his Harvard GSD lecture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qie5VITX6eQ

I remember my meeting with Oana well. She had her notebook ready and was as thoughtful and inquisitive as I have now known her to be. I told Oana that this was an interesting time to connect. The legal system is a reluctant beast: usually adverse and slow to change. The pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement acted as a catalyst for multiple overdue changes to the legal system.

What has space got to do with it?

The shelter in place guidelines meant that proceedings and services, usually offered in physical buildings, had to move to an online environment. Judges, IT departments, attorneys, court clerks and administrators all worked over time to adapt to this new reality. This new reality meant that court personnel had to be outfitted with laptops, webcams and other technology to make sure they were able to proceed with their activities online. At the same time, new systems had to be set up for litigants and lawyers to ensure that they were still able to access the legal system, albeit in a virtual environment.

In 2020, one of the earliest comments I heard about remote proceedings was that litigants experienced a loss in the benefits that physical waiting rooms could offer. Waiting rooms in physical court buildings offered a space where litigants could chat with each other, connect to legal aid volunteers, look at informational posters or just process their emotions while they waited. All these advantages of being in a physical space were lost in an virtual environment where litigants stared at blank screens in their homes waiting to be let into the Zoom courtroom.

It was not only virtual spaces that had to be redesigned. Once quarantine regulations became less restrictive, court administrators had to figure out how this new hybrid reality would look. Most people seemed to enjoy the benefits, such as Zooming into their proceedings from the comforts of their living rooms, that came along with remote proceedings. On the other hand, plenty of people had a hard time dealing with this new reality. Some litigants did not have technological equipment or WiFi at home to access remote proceedings. Court administrators had to rethink how their court buildings were designed from the perspective of (new) users. Spaces had to be reconfigured to accommodate those who were not able to access virtual proceedings or services. Traditional court buildings had to be redesigned to accommodate features of the new hybrid reality, such as tech hubs and zoom pods. It is against this backdrop that Oana and I had an open and honest conversation about law and architecture.

Architecture and Law; Law and Architecture

It is true what they say about design. It is rare to notice good design and easy to spot it when it’s bad. I grew up in a country that is renowned for its modern design, architecture and urban planning. And although I care a lot about design and architecture, it’s only when my living environment shifted that I started noticing things that I didn’t notice before. I suddenly missed the ease and beauty that I had taken for granted.

Have you ever walked into a space and realized how nice it felt? The sunlight coming through the windows just right, the colors on the wall and the spaciousness of the room that evoked happy peaceful emotions. We often feel these sensations but do not articulate them. Nor do we link them to the fact that design choices have been made to evoke a certain feeling. It is only when we sit down and talk with designers and architects that we get an insight into the meaning behind design.

It’s understandable to feel this way. How often do we critically think about other disciplines when it is not affecting us? Space and design are interesting in that sense. Everything around us, the world we live in, is designed. Design choices, whether good or bad, have been made about every single thing in our lives. From the house you reside in to the streets you walk, the neighborhood you live in and the furniture you use. Everything is design and design is everything, but we do not necessarily think about it that way in our day-to-day lives.

In many ways, this is similar to law. Law, like architecture, is always there. There is no escaping it. It is part of the fabric of our society. It is easy to not care about law, if you are not involved in a legal dispute or if you have the means to solve any legal issue that comes your way. The fact that you don’t notice or care about it, doesn’t mean it is not affecting you and the rest of society.

It was eerie to notice so many parallels between architecture and law during my conversations with Oana and Virgil. Talking about your subject matter expertise with non-experts allows you to see your own profession in a new light.

Interdisciplinary, Planetary, Intergalactic

In the legal design and tech world everyone talks about interdisciplinary research, but what does that actually mean in practice? It seems oftentimes people think it means learning a completely new set of skills in order for it to be labelled an interdisciplinary project, but in my experience that is not necessary at all. I think it is more important to connect and collaborate with people who are curious, people who are asking similar questions about the world as you are, people you have a connection with. Through this connection you can create an exchange of ideas that on its turn will create an interdisciplinary project.

The premise of this project was not that Oana and Virgil had to learn everything about law and I had to learn everything about architecture. The essence of the project was that like-minded individuals who work in different disciplines came together and started chatting about the world and the issues they thought were important. These conversations formed the basis of the project that was based on trust, curiosity and willingness to create New Spaces of Justice.

New Spaces of Justice

New Spaces of Justice was set up as a 12-week seminar for Harvard Graduate School of Design and Stanford students. In the summer of 2020 I put out a call on mailing lists to find stakeholders who had been dealing with the effects of the pandemic in courthouses. I ended up connecting with Danielle Hirsch (Principal Court Management Consultant at the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), Zach Zarnow (Consultant at at the National Center for State Courts (NCSC)), Judge Landau (Salt Lake City Justice Court), Frances Paparigian (Self-Represented Litigant Coordinator at 19th Judicial Circuit Court), Stacey Marz (Administrative Director, Alaska State Court System), Kate Wurmfeld (Director of Family Court Programs at the Center for Court Innovation (CCI))

During my conversations with all these wonderful individuals, I just wanted to find out what some of the problems were that the stakeholders were facing. Three main problems came forward: access points, virtual legal assistance and domestic violence and privacy. Oana and I then spent weeks re-configuring these problem areas into three case studies that the students would be working on.

Case study: Access Points

The lack of WiFi creates an additional hindrance for self-represented litigants to access justice. Individuals either do not have the equipment at home to access their hearings or the equipment is not up to date enough to handle online remote proceedings. In practice this means that self-represented litigants have to first search for ways on how to access the legal system, before they face the challenge of navigating it. Moreover, preliminary research indicates that vulnerable unrepresented persons in the justice system are more likely to be disadvantaged in online hearings. In order to combat this problem, legal aid organizations and courts are interested in setting up Covid-proof legal help stations where litigants can make use of equipment to access their online hearings and receive legal information.

Case study: Virtual Legal Assistance

Self-represented litigants receive assistance through various means in court buildings. For example, court staff or legal aid volunteers can provide more information about forms that a litigant has to fill out. Waiting rooms in court buildings were also more than just a place to wait until the proceeding starts. Self-represented litigants receive additional information by just being in a physical building. There were informational posters, legal aid volunteers, and other litigants who could provide comfort in a stressful situation. These benefits do not exist in the virtual realm. This case study focused on ways that replicate legal help and the benefits of a waiting room in a virtual space. How can we create an environment in which self-represented litigants not only sign in online to go to their court hearings, but also receive assistance as they would have in traditional court buildings?

Case study: Domestic Violence & Privacy

Pre-pandemic, domestic violence cases were held in court houses where several guidelines were put in place to ensure the safety and privacy of the parties. For example, the seating arrangement in rooms reflected the risk for disruption and violence in these types of cases. Domestic violence proceedings that take place online are challenging for various reasons. Several reports indicate that victims are being harassed in their new homes, because they often have to turn on their webcams during online proceedings. Abusers can then locate the victim by identifying their video background. Harassment is also taking place through the chat function of various video conference tools. This case study focused on ways to design virtual protections for victims of domestic violence.

Architecture and law students were asked to select one of these case studies, team up and collaborate with each other and the stakeholders to co-design potential solutions.

Results

I think the most interesting thing about interdisciplinary research is examining the methodologies that different disciplines use, figuring out how people are looking at and tackling problems within their disciplines. Interdisciplinary research to me means combining and merging methodologies from different disciplines so that it can lead to a new solution to tackle some of the most complex problems in the world.

The purpose of this 12 week seminar was to get closer to that objective. The students used their different skill sets and knowledge to analyze problems and draft prototypes for the case studies. These prototypes ranged from analyzing how waiting times impact litigants in virtual environments to combining urban planning and eviction prevention knowledge to create an in-depth analysis on the eviction crisis in the United States.

The problems that we discussed are incredibly complex and overlap multiple disciplines. It is thus only by merging different fields that we can start building for a better future. This 12 week seminar gave us a sneak peak and understanding what happens if we rely on trust and curiosity in interdisciplinary research.

This is just the beginning

I think of Virgil often. After our presentation went live, we received an overwhelming amount of positive messages both from the legal community (lawyers, judges, students) and the design world. People tuned in from all around the world to hear how we can redesign the legal system for the better. As Virgil said, if everything in life is designed, why can’t we design the legal system and make it something people want to use? We need to think far beyond our own disciplines and status quo. During one of our conversations with the students he questioned why we could not move court houses to hot air balloons and have court buildings designed like Apple stores.

He is right. We can and should make the conscious decision to change. And in order to change we need to break open the doors to our own disciplines. Let other people come in, look around and question what we are doing. We also need to be brave, curious and explore other fields, so that we can learn from others.

Curiosity, trust and openness will create new spaces for us where we can explore and experiment in building an equitable future that is accessible to all.