Access to justice remains an unmet need for most people worldwide. An estimated 5.1 billion individuals—two-thirds of the global population—lack meaningful legal access. Even in wealthy countries like the U.S., around 80% of low-income individuals receive inadequate or no legal assistance for civil matters (Thomas Reuters, 2022). Legal services are often expensive and centralized, leaving rural and low-income populations underserved. Public legal aid is overwhelmed, with spending in Europe down 16% since 2020 (Council of Europe, 2024), worsening court delays and forcing many to navigate legal issues alone.

This justice gap is not just a moral concern; it’s a threat to social stability and economic development. Research links legal access to reduced poverty and improved governance, prompting the UN to include “equal access to justice for all” in SDG 16. The existing legal infrastructure cannot scale to meet global demand—new solutions are urgently needed. Technology offers an opportunity to broaden access without compromising integrity.

The AI divide: promise vs. distribution

AI has the potential to revolutionize legal services. Tools like intelligent research assistants and document automation can reduce costs and increase efficiency. An estimated 44–50% of legal tasks are automatable, potentially unlocking billions in productivity. These gains could help lawyers serve more clients at lower costs.

Yet the benefits of AI remain unevenly distributed. A UN report notes that 40% of global AI R&D investment is concentrated in just 100 firms, primarily in the U.S. and China. Legal AI mirrors this, with most investment aimed at large firms and elite legal departments. Small firms, community legal clinics, and underserved regions remain largely excluded. If AI adoption continues to favor the well-resourced, it risks widening the legal divide instead of closing it.

A turning point for smaller legal providers

Democratizing legal tech means enabling access for small firms, solo practitioners, and under-resourced legal services—not just large corporate players. These lawyers handle a vast share of everyday legal needs but often lack the resources to adopt cutting-edge technology.

Encouragingly, change is underway. Generative AI use among small firms has nearly doubled—from 27% in 2023 to 53% in 2025 (2025 State of Law Report). When tools are affordable, intuitive, and secure, smaller firms show clear willingness to engage. But adoption must lead to confidence and competence, not just experimentation.

Structural exclusion in legal innovation

Small firms aren’t a marginal segment—they are the core of access to justice. In Europe, 90% of law firms have fewer than 10 lawyers (CCBE, 2023); in the U.S., nearly half of attorneys work in firms of five or fewer (ABA, 2024). These lawyers are essential for handling evictions, divorces, employment disputes, and small business matters.

Despite their importance, these firms are underserved by legal innovation. Most AI tools are designed for large, well-funded operations, not high-volume, people-centered practices. As a result, fewer than 18% of small or solo firms in Europe use AI-enabled tools, compared to over 70% of top commercial firms (LexisNexis, 2024). The gap is not just about access—it’s structural. For small firms, adopting AI is about sustaining their practice in a rapidly evolving profession.

If democratization is the goal, it must begin with intentional design, long-term support, and inclusion—not just trickle-down access.

Building for adoption, not just access

AI’s impact depends not only on its availability but on how it’s integrated into legal work. For small firms, adoption is less about innovation and more about trust—does the tool help them serve clients better, without adding complexity or compromising quality?

Successful implementation must reflect the workflows, values, and realities of smaller firms. Features like transparency, explainability, and jurisdictional awareness are not optional—they are essential. Adoption also depends on support: onboarding, communities, and peer networks all influence how tools are used.

The goal isn’t rapid deployment—it’s deep integration. And while AI is no silver bullet, it can help address structural challenges—if introduced responsibly. That’s where platforms like Saga aim to make a difference: by treating adoption as a process, not a transaction. Training, peer exchange, and iteration aren’t extras—they’re fundamental.

For the long tail of the legal profession to benefit from AI, technology must be coupled with trust, usability, and a deep understanding of what legal work really entails.

That’s where the future of legal AI will be decided.

‍