The debate has been running for some time. A 2026 Pro Bono Institute piece reports that 88% of respondents in an Everlaw-partnered survey believe AI can narrow the access gap, and it points to Kansas Legal Services chatbots already connecting clients to resources. A LawWorks 2026 survey found that 64% of delegates named inaccurate advice as their top concern. Earlier public and philanthropically funded tools include Florida's SANDI chatbot and Illinois Intervention. The "good enough" argument is contested. A widely shared view holds that AI is expanding access without improving people's odds of winning. The specifics of how these tools would be evaluated for accuracy have not been settled.
The timing matters because AI-assisted litigation is rising. A June 2026 MIT Technology Review piece reports that the share of filings flagged as AI-written grew from 1% in 2023 to 18% in 2026. Lawmakers are weighing who is liable when chatbots give bad legal advice. New York introduced a bill in March to bar chatbots from impersonating lawyers. Courts have also ruled that conversations with chatbots are not protected by attorney-client privilege. Attorneys advising clients on self-help tools should assume those exchanges are discoverable, and should watch the New York bill and any liability proposals for rules that could reach their clients or their own AI use.