THE IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON ACCESS TO JUSTICE: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CHATBOTS AND VIRTUAL ASSISTANTS FOR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS

Abstract

Introduction. Modern legal systems face a chronic problem of limited access to justice, particularly for vulnerable populations and self-represented litigants (SRLs). Significant barriers are created by the high cost of legal services, the complexity of legal procedures, and information asymmetry.

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, especially legal chatbots and virtual assistants, are viewed as a potential tool to overcome these obstacles. However, their implementation is not without risks, ranging from the inaccuracy of the information provided and algorithmic bias to the creation of a two-tiered system of justice. This issue is particularly relevant for Ukraine, which is undergoing active digital transformation and European integration, requiring the alignment of national innovations with European standards, particularly the provisions of the EU AI Act. Studying the effectiveness and risks of these tools is critically important for shaping a balanced state policy aimed at genuinely expanding access to justice, rather than creating an illusion of it.

Purpose. The purpose of this article is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the impact of AI tools, such as chatbots and virtual assistants, on access to justice for self-represented litigants. The research aims to assess the real potential of these technologies to overcome existing barriers, identify key risks and ethical challenges, and develop a scientifically grounded hypothesis regarding the optimal model for their implementation into the Ukrainian legal system, taking into account international experience and European regulatory frameworks.

Methods. The research is based on a combination of general scientific and special methods. System analysis was applied to study the relationships between technological innovations, legal institutions, and social needs. The comparative-legal method was used to compare the experience of implementing legal technologies in the USA, the EU, and Ukraine. The formal-dogmatic method allowed for the analysis of regulatory acts, particularly the EU AI Act, which governs the use of AI. The case study method was used for a detailed examination of specific examples of AI tools (DoNotPay, A2J Author, "Pryntsyp", "Natalka"), which helped to identify their strengths and weaknesses.

Synthesis and generalization enabled the formulation of conclusions and the development of the author's hypothesis.

Results. The article proves that AI has a significant but ambiguous potential for expanding access to justice. The case studies showed that narrowly specialized, task-oriented tools (e.g., document generators like A2J Author) are significantly more effective and safer for SRLs than universal "robot lawyers" (like DoNotPay), which are prone to errors and create inflated expectations.

Analysis of the US experience (LSC reports) indicates the effectiveness of the integrated "statewide portals" model. The EU's regulatory approach (AI Act) classifies AI in justice as "high-risk", requiring strict control. In Ukraine, there is a development of both civic (chatbot "Pryntsyp") and state (chatbot "Natalka" in "Diia") initiatives, but they are fragmented.
A hypothesis is formulated that the optimal path for Ukraine is not the pursuit of creating
a universal "AI judge", but the construction of a state ecosystem of integrated, narrowly specialized, and verified AI tools operating on a "single window" principle based on existing digital infrastructure.

Conclusion. Artificial intelligence is not a panacea, but it can become a powerful tool for democratizing access to justice if approached correctly.

Instead of the risky model of universal "AI lawyers", it is proposed to focus efforts on creating a national legal aid platform in Ukraine. This platform should unite narrowly specialized, verified AI modules (for generating lawsuits, checking documents, providing reference information) under state control and in accordance with EU AI Act standards. Such an approach, combining the proven effectiveness of tools like A2J Author with the integrated model of the LSC's "statewide portal", will provide real assistance to self-represented litigants, minimize risks, and ensure the responsible implementation of technology in the sensitive sphere of justice.