Will AI solve the access-to-justice gap?

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

Will AI solve the access-to-justice gap?

Our system of justice is founded on equal access to justice, which is a lofty ideal. In reality, however, there is an increasing gap between those who can afford legal services and those who can’t. The problem is multifaceted, driven in large part by funding cuts and competing priorities at the federal, state, and local levels. Just as the issue is complex, so too is the solution.

In recent years, technology has been offered as a panacea, a tool that will magically bridge the gap and ensure that anyone facing a legal challenge can effectively navigate the court system, with or without an attorney. In truth, capitalism has seemingly trumped altruism, and the tools intended to empower legal consumers have instead lined the pockets of technology entrepreneurs.

Enter generative artificial intelligence, a technology that offers great promise and an equal amount of risk. Can it singlehandedly solve the problem, or at least reduce the gap between the haves and have-nots? 

Answering that question was one of my goals when I authored 8am's annual Legal Industry Report this year. To that end, I included survey questions on access to justice to determine what legal professionals thought about the issue and how best to address it.

Responses to the 2026 Legal Industry Report survey highlight the magnitude of the problem and the mixed opinions on how to address it. The report, based on a survey of 1,300 legal professionals conducted from September to October 2025, found that improving the system requires a combination of increased funding, technical innovation, and a focused effort by the legal community to prioritize these issues.

The data shows a clear difference between the opinions of lawyers and other legal professionals on the effectiveness of the justice system. More than half of the lawyers surveyed (53%) believed that access is less than ideal, while only 35% of non-lawyers felt the same way. Similarly, 38% of non-lawyers were neutral on the topic, compared to 22% of lawyers. 

When asked how the system has changed over the last ten years, 40% of all respondents said access to justice remains about the same. Another 38% felt it had actually declined, while only 22% said it had improved, indicating an overall sense of pessimism about past progress.

The lack of enthusiasm was also present when respondents weighed in on the profession's effectiveness in addressing access to justice; only 8% of all respondents described the efforts as very effective, while 38% said they were somewhat effective. Another 32% viewed the efforts as neither effective nor ineffective, 16% as somewhat ineffective, and 6% as very ineffective.

When identifying the specific causes of these problems, 72% of respondents identified the high cost of legal services as the primary barrier, reinforcing the idea that an individual's ability to effectively navigate the system often depends on their financial status. Other major obstacles cited include the unequal distribution of legal resources across regions (42%) and inadequate funding (34%). 

Beyond financial issues, the report also highlights structural problems within the courts that contribute to reduced access. Specifically, 48% of respondents cited court backlogs and general inefficiency, 46% cited the complexity of legal procedures, and 45% cited systemic barriers such as language and socioeconomic status. Additionally, 44% identified a lack of public education as a contributing factor, while one-third of respondents highlighted a shortage of pro bono representation.

Respondents suggested that addressing the access-to-justice gap will require a variety of approaches. Fifty-five percent of respondents argued that increasing funding for public defenders and legal aid offices would help significantly. Another 38% emphasized the need for more pro bono representation. Improving court efficiency (51%) and simplifying the process of litigation (50%) were also popular solutions. Additionally, 47% of respondents suggested that better consumer education is a top priority, while 31% favored expanded alternative dispute resolution options.

Finally, some respondents expected that technology could help reduce access-to-justice issues. Nearly one-third of respondents said technology could help bridge the gap, specifically citing AI tools for lawyers (17%) and AI tools for consumers (13%). Additionally, more than three-quarters of respondents said technology has improved access over the last decade, while only 4% believed it made things worse. 

Looking ahead, the majority of those surveyed placed hope in AI and other technologies, with 76% believing they have the potential to expand access by automating routine tasks (53%), expanding self-help tools (52%), increasing remote services (51%), and streamlining court procedures (47%). 

Regarding the overall potential of AI to improve access to justice, 15% rated it as very high, 22% as high, 39% as moderate, 18% as low, and 6% saw none. Overall, 28% of respondents believe the access to justice landscape has significantly improved due to AI advancements, while 51% say it has somewhat improved, and 17% see no change.

Does a definitive solution to the access to justice crisis exist in 2026? The answer is a lawyerly one: it depends. It depends on a combination of increased funding, streamlined court processes, and a genuine commitment to altruism over profit. There is no silver bullet or single approach to bridging the gap.

Instead, the profession must be willing to experiment with new technologies, new service models, and new mindsets. While generative AI offers a path toward more creative and impactful solutions, it’s only one piece of the puzzle. For impactful progress to occur, digital tools must be supported by both traditional funding and a collective sense of urgency from the legal profession as a whole. In other words, equal access must be a collective priority rather than a theoretical ideal. 

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at 8am, the team behind MyCase, LawPay, CasePeer, and DocketWise.She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at niki.black@mycase.com.