The Digital Divide: Legal Access in the Age of Technology and the Right to Representation

By: Calee Mitchelson — February 2nd, 2026

Introduction:

Over the last decade, technology has rapidly shaped the lives of all Americans, particularly in how we interact with the legal system. Courts have increasingly relied on technology to hold virtual hearings, use online filing systems, and even communicate digitally. At the same time, tools like artificial intelligence and legal aid websites have become more common resources for information for individuals seeking legal guidance, with the promise of effective, efficient, and broader access to counsel. Yet the rise of legal technology has highlighted the growing inequality in the justice system: the digital divide.

As legal processes move online, individuals will face never-before-seen barriers to exercising their constitutional rights without reliable access to the internet, proper technological devices, or digital literacy. While access for many individuals has improved, a system has emerged in which digital courts and automated legal tools determine access to justice. This widening divide has raised questions about fairness, inclusivity, and the constitutionality of an increasingly digitalized system.

Background:

The course of digitalization of the legal system changed entirely during the COVID-19 pandemic, when courts across the United States turned to virtual operations out of necessity to continue operating. Many state court systems adopted platforms such as Zoom, online portals for submitting legal documents, and digital kiosks for self-represented litigants. Simultaneously, online legal aid organizations expanded their reach drastically, allowing individuals to access information and assistance from anywhere. Nonetheless, technology gaps persisted.

Rural communities with limited access to Wi-Fi, low-income households without proper technology, and elderly or disabled individuals unfamiliar with digital systems faced new obstacles. Uneven access to internet speeds, device quality, and digital literacy skills quickly appeared in almost every community, exposing the harsh realities of preexisting inequalities and creating new forms of procedural disadvantage.

The Court’s Considerations:

Although the Supreme Court has not yet issued a landmark ruling directly addressing the digital divide, its jurisprudence on fairness, due process, and access to the courts provides guidance on what the Court's approach to this issue is.

In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), the Supreme Court held that states must provide prisoners with adequate legal resources to ensure meaningful access to courts. Although the case addressed and looked at prison libraries, the underlying reasoning is relevant to today: when the state provides a legal process, it must ensure that individuals can realistically utilize it.

Similarly, Turner v. Rogers, et al., 564 U.S. 431 (2011), recognized that procedural fairness has to be preserved even when litigants lack representation. By answering the question, “Do low-income individuals who face incarceration for civil contempt have a constitutional right to a court-appointed attorney?”, the Court noted that in the case of a civil litigant, their due process can easily be compromised without adequate protection. This can be applied to the digital divide: if a litigant cannot access a remote hearing or navigate e-filing, adequate protections must be available to protect their rights.

These precedents suggest that as courts embrace change and digital systems, they must ensure these systems do not undermine the protections guaranteed by the Constitution.

Legacy and Emerging Issues Regarding a Digital Justice System:

The digital divide’s impact is most pronounced among those who self-represent themselves. When faced with the already steep challenge of navigating legal proceedings without counsel, hearings conducted over Zoom affect the litigant’s ability to present evidence, observe demeanors, or even communicate with a judge, which may depend entirely on the strength of a litigant’s internet connection. Missed hearings due to technical difficulties could result in a default warrant— outcomes that disproportionately affect those without reliable technology.

Artificial intelligence (AI) introduces new layers of complexity. AI-driven tools offer the potential to expand access to information, but concerns persist over accuracy, bias, and the risk of providing misleading advice to litigants. Federal courts have already started to see these issues arrive with AI-generated filings containing fabricated citations, raising questions about oversight and reliability (Defender Services Office, 2025).

Looking across the United States, some state courts have begun creating their own hybrid models that preserve digital and in-person access to courts; however, under state law, implementation of these models has varied significantly, leaving many without adequate support.

Future Challenges & Recommendation Moving Forward:

As courts consider long-term modernization into the twenty-first century, unresolved constitutional questions continue to emerge. Must states provide alternatives to digital hearings? Should technological access be treated as a component of representation? How should courts ensure confidentiality between attorneys and clients in virtual settings? Should AI-driven legal tools be regulated or mandated? When technological errors occur, do they constitute reversible errors?

Policymakers and courts will have to answer these questions and more while balancing innovation with equity. Expanding access, investing in public digital resources, and ensuring hybrid court models remain available for everyone will be essential.

However, technology has the potential to strengthen access to justice— but only if our legal systems ensure that digital tools enhance, rather than undermine, the fundamental right to fair representation. Without deliberately placed safeguards, the digital divide risks becoming the next frontier of constitutional inequality.

References:

  • U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
  • Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-915
  • Turner v. Rogers, et al., 564 U.S. 431 (2011). https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/10-10
  • Defender Services Office. (2025, January 27). Court sanctions defense attorney whose brief cited nonexistent case. https://www.fd.org/news/court-sanctions-defense-attorney-whose-brief-cited-nonexistent-case