Paid Blog

Neurotechnology is transforming the legal profession — but could it unintentionally discriminate against neurodivergent lawyers? This article by Nahed Hadid explores how brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and cognitive monitoring tools might reinforce bias, threaten mental privacy, and challenge fairness in law. Discover the ethical, legal, and inclusion risks of neurotech in legal practice and why designing with neurodiversity in mind is essential for the future of justice.

Meta’s Neural Band, launched with Ray-Ban Display glasses, decodes motor-neuron signals non-invasively through wrist EMG sensors, translating neural intent into digital action. Marketed as sleek and accessible, it promises frictionless control and new accessibility—but also ushers in mass neural data capture. As Meta blurs the line between thought and technology, society faces urgent questions of consent, ownership, and cognitive privacy.

Neurotechnology is reshaping personal injury law by treating depression, anxiety, and PTSD with tools like Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). It also enables symptom assessment via fMRI and EEG. These advances bring hope for recovery but raise ethical concerns over privacy, autonomy, consent, and bias. Responsible integration is vital to ensure fair, effective outcomes in both medical care and legal practice.