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.
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.
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].