LEGAL TECH AND SOCIAL INCLUSION: EVIDENCE ON THE JUSTICE GAP IN THE UNITED STATES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56238/isevmjv1n1-030Palabras clave:
Legal Technology, Access to Justice, Digital Inclusion, Artificial Intelligence, Online Dispute ResolutionResumen
The justice gap in the United States reflects the structural inability of civil and criminal legal institutions to adequately meet the legal needs of low-income and vulnerable populations. Scholarship consistently demonstrates that a substantial proportion of civil legal needs among economically disadvantaged groups remain unmet or only partially addressed. This article conducts a structured literature review examining empirical and normative research on the role of legal technology in mitigating these structural barriers. Findings indicate that digital self-help tools, AI-assisted systems, online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms, institutional interoperability mechanisms, and digital pro bono initiatives possess the potential to expand informational access, procedural efficiency, and geographic reach. However, such effects are conditional upon inclusive design, regulatory oversight, interoperability standards, public investment, and sustained digital inclusion policies. Legal technology does not operate as an automatic equalizer but as an institutional variable whose distributive impact depends on governance architecture.
Referencias
1. Barton, B., Estreicher, S., & Radice, J. (2016). Technology can solve much of America’s access to justice problem, if we let it.
2. Brescia, R. (2018). Using technology to improve rural access to justice.
3. Filho, A. W. B. N. (2025). Analyzing the relationship between collections management and corporate financial stability: A review of the literature. Brazilian Journal of Development, 11(8), e81864. https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv11n8-057
4. Gotardi Pessoa, E. (2025). Analysis of the performance of helical piles under various load and geometry conditions. ITEGAM-JETIA, 11(53), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.5935/jetia.v11i53.1887
5. Gotardi Pessoa, E. (2025). Sustainable solutions for urban infrastructure: The environmental and economic benefits of using recycled construction and demolition waste in permeable pavements. ITEGAM-JETIA, 11(53), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.5935/jetia.v11i53.1886
6. Implications of digitalization and AI in the justice system. (2024). Law and World.
7. Javed, K., & Li, J. (2025). Bias in adjudication. PLOS ONE, 20.
8. Magassa, L., & Friedman, B. (2024). Toward inclusive justice. ACM Journal on Responsible Computing, 1, 1–30.
9. Mittana, R. (2025). Improving access to justice: AI-enabled legal assistance for self-represented litigants.
10. Mjadu, L. (2025). Leveraging legal technology to enhance legal awareness and access to justice in underserved communities.
11. Morgan, G., Smith, L., Walker, C., & Taxman, F. (2025). Digital justice. Prison Journal, 105, 131–151.
12. Neves Filho, A. W. B. (2020). Entrepreneurship in collections: Challenges and opportunities in managing diversified client portfolios. Revista Sistemática, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.56238/rcsv1n1-007
13. Ramirez, F. (2022). The digital divide in the US criminal justice system. New Media & Society, 24, 514–529.
14. Rostain, T. (2019). Techno-optimism & access to the legal system. Daedalus, 148, 93–97.
15. Schlievert, E. (2024). Understanding U.S. attorneys' use of technology following the COVID-19 pandemic.
16. Schmitz, A., & Zeleznikow, J. (2021). Intelligent legal tech to empower self-represented litigants.
17. Simshaw, D. (2025). Interoperable legal AI for access to justice.
18. Simshaw, D. (2025). Toward national regulation of legal technology.
19. Sourdin, T., Li, B., & McNamara, D. (2020). Court innovations and access to justice in times of crisis. Health Policy and Technology, 9, 447–453.
20. THE impact of professional experience on collections management: How seventeen years in the field shape decisions and strategy effectiveness. (2022). International Seven Journal of Multidisciplinary, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.56238/isevmjv1n2-021
21. Vinson, K., & Moppett, S. (2018). Digital pro bono. St. John’s Law Review, 92, 551.
22. Waldman, E. (2020). How mediation contributes to the justice gap. Fordham Law Review, 88, 2425.
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
