Access to Justice
Access to Justice refers to the question of whether people can actually enforce their rights – and not fail simply because lawyers are too expensive, proceedings take too long, or forms are too complicated. Digital tools and AI programs are meant to lower these hurdles, but they raise new questions about reliability and accountability.
Every person has rights: to their wages, to safe housing, to a refund for defective goods. But having these rights on paper is only half the story. One must also be able to enforce them. This is exactly what Access to Justice is about, literally “access to justice.” The term describes whether ordinary people actually get their rights in practice. Anyone who cannot afford a lawyer, who does not understand bureaucratic language, or who would have to wait three years for a verdict effectively has no access – even if the law is on their side.
Why having a right and getting your right are two different things
Legal disputes cost money, time, and nerves. An hour of a lawyer’s time can cost several hundred euros in Germany. In a dispute over a 300-euro deposit, this simply never pays off mathematically. Many people therefore simply give up. Experts call this the “legal protection gap”: a large share of everyday conflicts never make it to a court or an advice center.
The problem does not affect everyone equally. Those who earn little, speak poor German, or live in a rural area without advice centers are doubly disadvantaged. Large companies, by contrast, have their own legal departments. This imbalance weakens trust in the rule of law. Because when laws only apply to those who can afford help, they lose their effect.
That is why Access to Justice is also a political goal. The United Nations has included it in its Sustainable Development Goals. States invest in legal aid, mediation services, and clearer forms. For several years now, technology has been considered an important additional lever.
How technology is meant to lower the hurdles
The basic idea is simple: many legal problems recur. Thousands of people argue about delayed flights, invalid rental clauses, or incorrect phone bills. Such standard cases can largely be automated. A program asks questions, checks the answers, and generates a finished document from them. This reduces the effort per case from hours to minutes.
Language models have newly joined the mix. These are AI programs trained on huge amounts of text that can formulate fluent answers. They can translate legal texts into plain language, summarize contracts, or explain which deadline currently applies. For people without prior knowledge, this is often the crucial first step of help. Some courts and advice centers are now officially testing such assistants.
But there is a well-known catch. Language models sometimes invent facts, such as statutes or rulings that do not exist. Experts call this hallucination. In the US, lawyers have already been sanctioned for submitting fabricated rulings to court. In legal matters, a false piece of information can cause a deadline to be missed. Reputable services therefore work with verified databases and have important steps checked by humans.
Legal Tech, portals, and the dispute over advice
In everyday life, Access to Justice is usually encountered under the buzzword Legal Tech. This refers to companies and apps that offer legal services digitally. Well-known examples are portals for air passenger rights, rent control caps, or protection against dismissal. They review the case online and handle the process in exchange for a share of the winnings. This creates no cost risk for users, which is often what prompts them to act in the first place.
In the news, such providers often appear in connection with court rulings. In Germany, only licensed lawyers and registered service providers are allowed to offer legal advice. Where exactly the line lies between an information service and genuine legal advice is disputed. The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has repeatedly ruled on how far Legal Tech companies may go.
The judiciary itself is also digitalizing. There are online application assistants, electronic case files, and pilot projects for purely digital proceedings in small-claims cases. For investors, the field is interesting because the legal market is large and, until now, has been little explored technologically. What remains important is the distinction: Access to Justice is the goal, Legal Tech is only one of the means to get there.