Date of Publication:
Yolanda Eisenstein and Erin Okuno, Conclusion, in Wildlife Law in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective (Yolanda Eisenstein and Erin Okuno eds., LexisNexis, 2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Kristen David Adams, Before We Go Fully Digital: The Critical Protections at Risk if Checks Disappear, SMU Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. (2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Kristen David Adams and Bradford Stone, Hadley for the 21st Century, (2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Kristen David Adams and Candace Zierdt, Law Reform as Professional Responsibility, American Bankruptcy Law Journal (2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Yolanda Eisenstein and Erin Okuno (eds.), Wildlife Law in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective (LexisNexis, 2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Yolanda Eisenstein and Erin Okuno, Introduction, in Wildlife Law in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective (Yolanda Eisenstein ed., LexisNexis, 2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Yolanda Eisenstein and Erin Okuno, United States Wildlife Law, in Wildlife Law in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective (Yolanda Eisenstein and Erin Okuno eds., LexisNexis, 2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ashley Krenelka Chase, Synthetic Lawyering and Equal Justice: AI, Unauthorized Practice, and Access to Justice, Nev. L.J. (2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article examines how generative artificial intelligence is reshaping the question of “who gets a lawyer” by creating a shadow system of AI-mediated legal help for people who cannot access traditional counsel, especially incarcerated and low-income litigants. The legal frameworks governing AI-mediated legal assistance create a paradox: they are strict enough to chill innovation by well-regulated entities like legal aid organizations and public defenders, yet porous enough to permit unaccountable vendors to market synthetic lawyering tools to the most vulnerable populations with minimal, if any, oversight. The result is a rock and a hard place: generative AI is exacerbating the justice gap between those who can afford lawyers and those who cannot, while the companies best positioned to close that gap decline to invest in legal AI for fear of unauthorized-practice-of-law liability, ceding the field to vendors with far less incentive to get it right. Building on scholarship on prison communications markets, legal publishing, and access to justice, this Article argues that AI tools are not neutral innovations layered onto an otherwise equal system. Instead, they are becoming structural features of a two-tiered regime in which affluent parties receive human lawyers and bespoke advice, while everyone else increasingly receives synthetic lawyering: AI-generated grievances, bar complaints, pleadings, and research. By reframing AI legal assistance as an access-to-justice infrastructure problem rather than a narrow ethics puzzle, the Article connects innovation and regulation to the constitutional promise of equal justice under law.
Date of Publication:
Victoria Litman, Law, Religion, and Psychedelics in the United States of America (Cambridge University Press, 2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Kristen R. Moore, Sitting with the Consequences: Addressing Sedentary Work in Modern Librarianship, 45 Legal Ref. Serv. Q. (2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.