For decades, the cost of legal services has continued to rise, even as funding for access-to-justice organizations has declined. This unfortunate trend has widened the moat between the justice system and those who need its protections the most.
Technology has long been offered as a possible solution to this problem, with many suggesting that online platforms or tools could bridge the gap by either connecting legal consumers with more affordable legal services or enabling them to better represent themselves.
Most Law Firms’ AI Strategies Have a Big Blind Spot. Here’s How One Am Law 200 Firm is Solving It.
Most law firms, big and small, that have adopted AI are making the same mistake: they bought a tool for their lawyers and called it a strategy.
Unfortunately, in most cases, the only people who benefited from those efforts were technology executives and investors. Capitalism repeatedly trumped altruism, leaving legal consumers to fend for themselves.
Enter generative artificial intelligence (AI), a technology with so much potential, for both good and bad outcomes. The tension between the possibilities is what makes AI so exciting in this context: Is it the silver bullet that will solve the access to justice problem — or, at the very least, meaningfully improve it?
It’s an interesting question, and one that was explored in 8am’s 2026 Legal Industry Report, which was released in March. This year, 1,300 legal professionals were surveyed about topics ranging from AI adoption trends and productivity gains to perspectives on the current state of access to justice and the rule of law.
The section devoted to access to justice explored differences in viewpoints across legal roles, perceptions of the past and present challenges legal consumers face when seeking legal assistance, and ideas for improving access to justice, whether through leveraging new technologies like AI or by other means. The data offered lots of interesting insights from legal professionals on the efficacy of our justice system.
The New Way Litigators Handle Depositions Applies AI Every Step Of The Way
Depositions by Filevine help with scheduling, tracking goals, and trial prep.
One interesting finding was that when asked about the current state of access to justice, responses varied notably across legal roles. More than half (53%) of lawyers felt that access to justice was less than ideal, while only 35% of other legal professionals agreed. Similarly, 38% of nonlawyers were neutral on the issue compared to only 22% of lawyers.
This disparity likely reflects differences in both training and experience. Lawyers spend semesters in law school learning about the rights imbued in our Constitution and are more closely involved in the day-to-day machinations of the court system. These factors likely color their perspectives on the state of the justice system, leading to the difference between their responses and those of other legal professionals.
Respondents also weighed in on whether access to justice had improved over the past decade. Responses across roles were more aligned on this issue: 40% of those surveyed concluded that the situation hadn’t changed much and was “about the same,” 38% said it was “somewhat worse” or “much worse,” and 22% said it had improved.
Only 8% of respondents said the legal profession had been “very effective” in addressing the issue, while 38% described it as “somewhat effective,” and 22% said it had been ineffective. In other words, the overall consensus reflected a less-than-enthusiastic view of the profession’s attempts to expand access.
There was more agreement regarding the barriers to obtaining effective legal representation. For example, 72% believed that the cost of legal services is the most significant barrier, followed by court inefficiencies and backlogs (48%), and the complexity of legal processes (46%).
Systemic barriers such as language and socioeconomic status were identified by 45% of participants, while 44% suggested that a lack of public legal education prevents people from navigating the system effectively. Lastly, unequal distribution of legal resources between urban and rural areas concerned 42% of respondents, insufficient funding was seen as a problem by 34%, and 33% thought that a shortage of pro bono services limits access to justice.
Perspectives on solutions to the problem varied, with 55% of respondents selecting expanded legal aid and funding for public defenders as the most plausible fix. Court modernization and efficiency initiatives were favored by 51%, simplification of legal processes and procedures was identified by 50%, and increased civic and legal education was seen as a key improvement by 47% of participants. Another 38% chose greater availability of pro bono services, followed by alternative dispute resolution options (31%).
Fewer respondents believed that technology could singlehandedly bridge the gap, with only 17% concluding that AI tools for lawyers would improve access and 13% selecting AI tools for legal consumers. Regarding AI’s potential more generally, 37% of respondents rated it as high or very high, while 39% saw only moderate potential, and 24% believed it had low or no potential to improve access to justice.
When asked how AI and technology could improve access to justice, the top choice was automating routine legal tasks such as document preparation, selected by 53%. This was followed closely by expanding access to self-help legal tools and resources (52%), increasing availability of remote and virtual services (51%), and improving legal research and efficiency (48%). Streamlining court procedures was identified by 47% of participants, and reducing the cost of legal services by 46%.
Despite the future-facing pessimism, most respondents believed technology had made a difference over the past decade: 79% said technology has improved access to justice either somewhat (51%) or significantly (28%), while 17% saw no real change and only 4% believed it has made access worse.
Overall, the data showed that respondents were not without hope. Despite decades of rising costs and declining funding, most believed technology had already made a difference over the past decade, in large part because of sustained focus on improving access. Technology, and AI in particular, was seen as a meaningful part of the solution, and a sense of optimism prevailed, even as the jury is still out on whether it will finally close the gap between the justice system and the people who need it most.
Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at 8am, the team behind 8am MyCase, LawPay, CasePeer, and DocketWise. She’s been blogging since 2005, has written a weekly column for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York. She’s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack and she can be reached at [email protected].