Most Americans know that in all criminal cases – those filed by the government against an accused individual – the defendant has a constitutional right to a lawyer. The Supreme Court established this right in 1963 in the landmark case Gideon v. Wainright.

What many people may not know is that no such right exists in civil cases. Civil cases are those filed by individuals or businesses against other individuals or businesses – for example, a landlord against a tenant, a bank against a borrower or an employee against an employer. These cases affect rights that many Americans take for granted, including housing, healthcare and education.

But calls for a civil right to counsel, or “civil Gideon,” have gone unanswered for years. Meanwhile, the United States ranks 112th of 143 countries on access and affordability to civil legal services. This is 40 spots lower than a decade ago, despite a 6% increase in the U.S. practicing lawyer population during the same period.

Studies show that low-income Americans receive insufficient or no legal help for 92% of their civil legal problems. Nonprofit legal aid organizations fill some of this “justice gap.”

However, 49% of those whose income is low enough to qualify for services are turned away because legal services organizations lack resources. The number of people turned away does not include those who make too much money to qualify for legal aid, typically 125% of the federal poverty level, or US$37,878 for a family of four.

My scholarship, along with that of others, suggest that the U.S. cannot lawyer itself out of this crisis. The legal system has failed to provide the resources that these seniors, veterans, children, rural Americans and others need to defend their legal rights or even understand their legal problems.

I believe the proliferation of AI-powered chatbots and legal services offers a new means of addressing these unmet legal needs.

Since ChatGPT’s release in November 2022, concerns over lawyers’ sloppy AI use have dominated headlines, including instances where attorneys have cited fake legal cases in court filings.

Typically overlooked is how AI has changed the way ordinary people interact with the law. AI offers not only ready access to free legal information that was once hard to find, but also customized solutions to legal problems.

Two types of AI tools are relevant.

The first type is widely known and broadly available: the multipurpose AI platforms like ChatGPT and Claude. Built on massive datasets of information, these tools provide unrestricted, easy access to legal information and resources. They can also provide tailored answers to specific questions, including legal ones.

The second type is less well known. Niche AI tools are built on information relevant to a specific domain, like law. These types of tools are designed to understand the nuance of a field and assist with a narrow task. For example, Legal Aid of North Carolina offers a self-service AI tool that can answer users’ specific legal questions about child custody, domestic violence or consumer law.

Both multipurpose and niche tools can provide generic legal information as well as advice about a person’s legal problem. However, niche AIs are more accurate because they are trained on legal rather than generalized data and, therefore, they are more precise and relevant.

Nonetheless, multipurpose tools have proven skilled at helping litigants without access to lawyers. Early data indicate that these self-represented people are filing more cases as ChatGPT and similar tools became available.

Judges agree that the increase in self-represented litigants may be attributable to AI. However, access to the courts has not yet resulted in better chances of winning one’s lawsuit.

Opponents of self-represented litigants have complained about the proliferation of cases and improper filings created by multipurpose AI. Judges have expressed frustration with self-represented parties dumping “hundreds of pages of documents” on the court.

Furthermore, without individualized human interaction, algorithmic-driven legal advice could harm litigants who are most in need of help by providing erroneous or incomplete advice.

Both multipurpose and niche legal tools are plagued by the legal profession’s self-imposed limits on who can deliver legal services. When individuals other than lawyers provide legal advice or otherwise engage in the practice of law, it is known as the unauthorized practice of law, or UPL. UPL restrictions are designed to ensure the public receives competent and ethical legal representation.

However, AI offers those who may not even understand they have a legal problem an opportunity to access information and assistance. AI can help people without counsel better understand the merits of their case and perhaps even understand the court procedure necessary to successfully represent themselves.

These tools are not without risk. But, without them, we may continue to meet only 8% percent of the civil legal needs of Americans. Everyone else will continue to do without.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Ellen Murphy, Wake Forest University

Read more:
How the American revolt against Flock cameras mirrors the Boston Tea Party of 1773

Lockdown or active shooter drill? The distinction matters for children’s safety and well‑being

AI is supercharging money scams – here’s what you can do to protect yourself

Ellen Murphy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.