︎



James v Birnmann

Designing a Never-ending Legal Drama, in a World Where Judges are No Longer Human
MA Architecture Design Thesis Project, Royal College of Art 2021
Exhibited at the RCA School of Architecture Graduate Show 2021 and RCA online exhibition
Published in Experimental Realism Design Fictions and Futures [RIBA 2022]
Published by Design Research Society and presented at the DRS conference in Bilbao [2022]
To be published by Cambridge University Press in ‘Legal Design: Dignifying People in Legal Systems’ Kim, Jackson, Sievert [2023]


James v Birnmann depicts a never ending legal drama, situated in a future where law is controlled by AI. The continual trial acts as a sinister mixture of entertainment and social pacifier, for a legal system increasingly detached from human control or values. As purely symbolic vestiture, the performance is separate from the functioning of the legal system. Following in a common law tradition, the trial is based on precedent of past ‘real’ trials and ‘fictional’ legal dramas - it is an amalgamation of our perception of law.
Law is a continual performance. Legal systems are human-made constructs that establish collective values to govern and control society. We perform these systems daily, following their rules and logic. Through this constant performance law appears objective, fixed and factual - illusions that maintain the system’s power and cement hierarchies. Courtrooms are the epicentre of this charade, where legal structures are promoted through procedure and performance, with rituals and symbolism exerting the law’s authority, both over the case in hand and the system at large. This is amplified through the recent media presence of courtroom trials, with the US televising real cases, and the popularity of fictional legal dramas. These pop culture trials frame the popular perception of law, demonstrating an idealistic, biased representation of the legal system. 

In 1932, the legal realist philosopher Jerome Frank asked ‘Are Judges Human?’ - considering their claims to objectivity through courtroom performance and ritual.  However, what would happen if judges really were not human, but instead Artificial Intelligences?

Law is a fertile sector for AI, with the growing industry of Law Tech already capitalising on this potential. Within this concealed algorithmic legal decision making, biases - usually along racial and socioeconomic lines – proliferate unchecked. Considering a future where the legal system is maintained by AI, courtroom trials will no longer be necessary, decisions will be made instantaneously through algorithms, the mechanisms of law will be invisible, and the subjective biases acknowledged but hidden. So, the performance of law will have to remain, to foster trust and validate the system.