Mind Your Business
Millions of Americans continue to lack meaningful access to justice. What can be done about it?
Illustration by Sara Wadford/Shutterstock.
Every day, millions of Americans confront legal challenges—family disputes, housing and job issues, estate claims and more. Yet for far too many, the justice system feels out of reach. The reason is simple but devastating: Professional legal help costs more than they can afford.
In its 2022 Justice Gap Study, Legal Services Corp. found 74% of low-income households experienced at least one civil legal problem in the previous year, and 92% of those problems received inadequate or no legal assistance. Among those who did not seek help, 46% of respondents cited financial concerns, while 53% doubted they could find a lawyer within their budget. This picture is consistent across studies: Stanford Law researchers report that in three-quarters of civil cases nationwide, at least one party lacks representation. This amounts to 15 million cases each year in which Americans are left to face court proceedings without a lawyer.
The problem is not limited to low-income households. In fact, in its 2025 Financial Wellness in the Workplace Report, PNC Bank reported 67% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. For most Americans, an unexpected expense like a modest legal retainer isn’t just difficult to absorb—it’s impossible.
Together, these findings highlight the severity of the divide between legal needs and access to assistance. The justice gap underscores the disconnect between rights guaranteed on paper but not delivered in practice. The reality is that justice is often a privilege that many cannot obtain.
Persistent problem
This gap stems from structural barriers. Legal aid programs are chronically underfunded and able to serve only a fraction of those in need. Pro bono efforts add value but cannot scale to meet the magnitude of the problem. At the same time, the traditional law firm model, built on large up-front retainers, remains out of reach for small businesses and most households, especially those living paycheck to paycheck.
The consequences of the justice gap are stark: People face eviction without counsel, small businesses are unable to enforce contracts, and families struggle through divorce without legal guidance. Too often, cases are abandoned or lost by default, as the system is misaligned with the economic realities of the people it’s meant to serve.
No single solution can close the justice gap. Progress will come from coordinated action across technology, policy, community initiatives and financing.
Tech solutions?
As technology evolves, so does its potential to shrink the access-to-justice gap. Digital tools cannot erase the gap entirely, but they are already reshaping how legal services are delivered and accessed.
Courts offer a clear example. The National Center for State Courts reported that all 50 states now use remote and hybrid hearings in various civil and criminal cases, reducing barriers to participation and simplifying access.
Legal practice is being reshaped by software powered by artificial intelligence. These tools help professionals devote more time to advising and representing clients by automating tasks such as research, contract review and document preparation, which used to require significant time from attorneys.
On the consumer side, AI tools and guided platforms help individuals complete routine processes, such as filing forms or navigating procedural steps. While not a substitute for lawyers, they provide meaningful support for those who might otherwise face the system alone.
The impact is twofold: Clients gain faster, more affordable access to support, and firms and legal aid organizations expand their efficiency and reach. When deployed responsibly, technology is one of the quickest ways to narrow the justice gap.
Innovation and reform
Policy reform is essential to closing the access-to-justice gap. While such reform often moves more slowly than technology evolution and adoption, there are examples of meaningful progress.
For instance, in 2020, the Utah Supreme Court launched a seven-year regulatory sandbox pilot that allows new types of providers, like firms with nonlawyer ownership and software-based services, to operate under close oversight.
A broad range of alternative legal service models were initially approved. By 2023, nearly 50 entities had been authorized to participate. Those entities collectively delivered more than 40,000 legal services to approximately 24,000 people, at an average cost of about $160 per service. The data does not identify the financial circumstances of these clients, so we cannot conclude that all were unable to afford traditional legal support.
In September 2024, Utah transitioned the sandbox into Phase 2 and later restructured the program, narrowing eligibility to models demonstrating moderate or high levels of innovation and a stated focus on serving underserved Utah residents. As part of this shift, the court closed the alternative business structure-only portion of the sandbox and increased eligibility and oversight requirements for participating entities. Consequently, the number of active sandbox entities declined from 39 in 2022 to 11 as of April 30, 2025. This analysis indicates the decline reflects a deliberate policy decision to narrow the scope of the pilot as it matured.
Yet innovation alone can’t solve the problem. Legal aid programs remain underfunded, and public defenders are stretched thin. Together, smart regulatory reform and greater investment in traditional services can expand affordable legal help and narrow the justice gap.
It takes a community
Community-based programs provide support for people who can’t afford a lawyer but still need help navigating the legal system.
One example is New York’s Court Navigator Program, which trains nonlawyers to assist people with civil legal needs. Navigators guide people through court processes that might otherwise feel overwhelming or unfamiliar. And New York is not an outlier.
A 2023 national scan identified 18 navigator-style programs operating in more than 20 states, from California to Maine. Interest in these programs is growing as states look for alternative pathways to support self-represented litigants.
Other efforts—such as community clinics, workshops and employer-sponsored legal benefits—extend resources to people where they live and work.
While these services don’t replace full legal representation, they can prevent individuals from facing the justice system entirely on their own.
New funding models
Closing the justice gap requires rethinking how legal services are procured and paid for. For many households, the most significant barrier to seeking legal assistance is affordability. The legal services market exceeds $400 billion, yet the range of payment and financing options has not kept pace with consumer needs.
Traditionally, the only third-party funding model has been litigation funding, in which investors fund significant cases or portfolios of contingency or personal injury cases in exchange for a share of the payout. This model helps high-stakes disputes move forward, but it leaves behind the most common legal needs; and when funders have a stake in outcomes, it raises ethical questions. In some cases, litigation funders can improperly influence a case by pressuring to settle too soon.
At LawFi, our new legal fee-lending model takes a different approach, offering regulated point-of-need consumer loans that pay lawyers directly. In this model, clients finance the cost of the legal services needed and repay the loan over time in predictable, affordable monthly installments. Repayment of the legal fee loan is not based on the outcome of a case; it is repaid like any other installment loan used to finance other products or services. The borrower takes out a loan to pay for legal services and agrees to repay it over time.
Unlike litigation funding, the legal fee lending model can be applied across a broad range of legal matters, including administrative, transactional, civil and commercial cases. Currently, payment options for these types of cases have been limited to credit card financing.
The new model avoids the conflicts tied to investor-driven funding and uncapped return on investment or interest charges, making representation more accessible and stable for both clients and firms. The new model alleviates concerns about influence over cases or funding that could lead to pressure to settle.
A more equitable system
The access-to-justice gap is a pervasive societal problem that touches not only low-income households but also the middle class, small businesses and entire communities. Closing it will take more than piecemeal fixes. By rethinking how technology, policy, community programs and funding models are applied in the legal system, we can make it more efficient and inclusive.
Access to justice is a right that must exist not only on paper but in practice. Narrowing the gap is more than a legal challenge; it is a societal imperative. And the tools to achieve it are already within reach.
Steven Highfill is founder and CEO of LawFi.
This column reflects the opinion of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal or the American Bar Association.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
