AI is reshaping litigation economics on both sides of the 'v', as access-to-justice advocates simultaneously look to AI to supplement regulatory reform in closing the legal services gap
Two parallel developments in AI and law are running simultaneously: one in commercial litigation, one in legal access. On the commercial side, a detailed analysis in Law.com describes an emerging AI arms race in litigation — with both claimant and defendant law firms deploying AI tools to accelerate document review, brief drafting, and case strategy, quietly rebuilding the economics of dispute resolution on both sides of the courtroom. The piece argues that while legal tech commentary has focused on brief-writing speed, the deeper disruption is structural: AI is changing the cost base of litigation preparation in ways that affect how matters are staffed, priced, and settled. On the access-to-justice side, advocates in Utah and Arizona — US states that have already undertaken regulatory reform to allow non-traditional legal service providers — are now exploring whether AI tools can supplement and accelerate the work those reforms were intended to achieve: closing the gap between the population that needs legal help and the population that can afford to pay law firm rates. The framing is significant: AI is positioned not as a replacement for regulatory reform but as a complement to it, capable of extending the reach of existing reform frameworks further and faster than regulatory change alone. Both stories converge on the same structural tension: AI is simultaneously a competitive weapon for well-resourced law firms in high-stakes commercial disputes and a potential tool for democratising access to legal services for individuals who cannot currently afford any legal advice at all.
Why this matters
The litigation AI arms race story matters for City firms because it signals that the cost-side benefits of AI — faster document review, more efficient brief research — will increasingly be competed away as adoption becomes universal. The firms that will maintain margin advantage are those that use AI to improve decision quality, not just processing speed. The access-to-justice dimension is relevant because regulatory reform in legal services (even in US states) tends to create pressure for equivalent debate in the UK, where the Legal Services Act and the Solicitors Regulation Authority's sandbox framework already permit some degree of alternative business model experimentation. For law students, understanding both dimensions is important: AI will change what junior lawyers do, but it is also creating new regulatory and governance questions around liability, privilege, and data handling that require legal analysis, not just technical deployment.
On the Ground
On an AI governance or technology advisory matter, a trainee would assist with drafting or marking up a data processing agreement — focusing on how client data is handled by an AI tool vendor — and preparing a regulatory impact assessment memo identifying any obligations under applicable data protection or AI governance frameworks. The trainee might also assist with vendor due diligence questionnaires, assessing whether a proposed AI litigation tool meets the firm's information security and privilege-protection standards.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“How should a law firm assess whether an AI tool used in litigation document review creates any risks around legal professional privilege, and what contractual protections should be sought from the technology vendor?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeSources
My notes
saved