AI Won’t Replace Lawyers, But It Will Change How People Find Them

No time to read? Listen to a conversation about this blog post instead.

This week, Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Nels Peterson stood before lawmakers and addressed something most attorneys would prefer to ignore: more than a third of civil cases in Georgia involve at least one party without a lawyer. In 54 counties, there are 10 or fewer attorneys. In eight counties, there are none.

His conclusion? As AI tools improve, they may have a role to play in closing that gap.

I’ve spent the last decade working exclusively with solo and small law firms in competitive metro markets. I’ve watched brilliant attorneys lose cases to competitors with better marketing. I’ve seen skilled practitioners struggle to stand out in saturated markets where the average metro area has 500+ law firms competing for clients, but only three spots exist in Google’s local pack. And I’ve watched the legal profession wrestle with whether technology is friend or enemy.

So when Chief Justice Peterson raises the possibility of AI helping bridge the justice gap, my first reaction isn’t excitement or fear. It’s a question: What kind of AI are we actually talking about?

The Distinction That Matters

There’s a critical difference between AI that replaces legal judgment and AI that helps people understand their options before they ever speak to a lawyer.

The first is dangerous. The second is overdue.

AI that attempts to practice law (predicting case outcomes, drafting pleadings, offering strategic advice) crosses a line that shouldn’t be crossed. Legal judgment requires context, experience, and accountability that no algorithm can replicate. Chief Justice Peterson is right to warn against lawyers filing AI-generated briefs citing nonexistent cases. That’s malpractice with a digital assist.

But AI that helps someone understand what a restraining order is, what documents they need for a custody hearing, or whether their situation even requires a lawyer? That’s not replacing attorneys. That’s filling a void that’s existed for decades.

The legal system has always had intermediaries. Court clerks answer procedural questions. Intake staff guide people toward the right forms. Self-help legal centers publish guides and templates. None of these replace lawyers, but all of them help people navigate systems that were never designed for non-lawyers to understand.

AI is simply the next evolution of that layer. One that can operate at scale, in multiple languages, at any hour, and with consistency that human systems can’t match.

The Real Access Problem: Visibility, Not Availability

Here’s what the rural attorney shortage and urban market saturation have in common: both create situations where qualified attorneys struggle to connect with the people who need them.

In rural Georgia, the problem is scarcity. Not enough lawyers.

In competitive metro markets, the problem is noise. Hundreds of qualified attorneys competing for visibility, with clients unable to distinguish expertise from marketing budget.

The firms that dominate search results aren’t necessarily the best lawyers. They’re the ones who figured out how to be visible and credible at scale. And that gap (between competence and visibility) is where thousands of skilled attorneys lose cases to competitors who simply look more established online.

This is where AI’s role becomes less theoretical and more immediate. Not by replacing lawyers, but by helping them communicate at scale without sacrificing billable hours.

How AI Helps Lawyers Compete Without Burning Out

Take video content as an example. A personal injury attorney who wants to educate potential clients about their rights has two options: spend hours every week recording educational videos, or post nothing and remain invisible to the 77% of consumers who start their attorney search online.

But what if that attorney could create a digital version of themselves (one that looks, sounds, and communicates like them) that handles the repetitive educational content while they focus on actual casework?

That’s not replacing legal judgment. That’s removing the friction between an attorney’s expertise and the public’s need for information. It’s allowing one attorney to maintain a consistent, professional presence across multiple platforms (YouTube, social media, website, email) without trading billable hours for content creation.

The attorney shortage Chief Justice Peterson mentioned isn’t just about rural counties. It’s also about solo and small firm attorneys in competitive markets who are drowning in administrative tasks, marketing demands, and the pressure to “show up everywhere” online while still practicing law.

When 82% of law firms report poor ROI from Google Ads, and 40% of inbound web leads go unanswered because attorneys are too busy, the bottleneck isn’t legal expertise. It’s capacity.

AI doesn’t solve the justice gap directly. But it does solve the capacity problem that prevents good attorneys from reaching the clients who need them.

The Real Risk Isn’t AI. It’s Irresponsible Use

Chief Justice Peterson is absolutely right to highlight risks. Fabricated evidence generated by AI is terrifying. Attorneys relying on hallucinated case law is embarrassing at best, sanctionable at worst.

But the solution isn’t to ban AI from the legal ecosystem. It’s to define its proper role clearly and enforce boundaries aggressively.

The real danger is unregulated, irresponsible use that erodes public trust in both technology and the legal system itself. When AI tools promise to “replace your lawyer” or “guarantee outcomes,” they’re not just misleading. They’re undermining the profession’s credibility.

Lawyers who engage thoughtfully with AI now will help shape the rules. Those who ignore it will have rules imposed on them by courts, legislators, and tech companies who don’t understand the nuances of legal practice.

Accessibility Through Amplification

The justice gap won’t be closed by AI alone. But it also won’t be closed by pretending that the market dynamics haven’t fundamentally changed.

Seventy-seven percent of consumers start their search for an attorney online. Sixty percent call directly from Maps listings without visiting websites. Ninety percent trust online reviews nearly as much as personal recommendations. And 56% of legal consumers take action within one week of recognizing their issue.

That means visibility isn’t vanity. It’s survival. And for solo and small firm attorneys competing against well-funded competitors with full-time marketing teams, the choice is stark: find scalable ways to maintain professional presence, or accept being invisible to the majority of potential clients.

AI doesn’t practice law. But it does help lawyers who are excellent at practicing law become visible to the people searching for that excellence.

The attorneys who understand this distinction (who see AI as a tool for amplification rather than replacement) will be the ones who actually compete effectively in modern legal markets. Not because they’re using cutting-edge technology, but because they’re using it to do what they’ve always done: demonstrate competence and build trust with people who need legal help.

The Choice Ahead

AI won’t close the justice gap on its own. It can’t replace the judgment of a skilled attorney or the reassurance of human counsel during a crisis. But it can (and will) change how people find lawyers, how they evaluate expertise, and how they decide which attorney to trust with their case.

The question isn’t whether AI will play a role in the legal system. Chief Justice Peterson has already acknowledged it will. The question is whether lawyers will participate in defining that role responsibly, or react to it after others have already decided.

I don’t believe AI is the revolution some people claim. But I do believe it’s a tool that, used correctly, can help competent attorneys compete against better-funded competitors, maintain consistent professional presence without sacrificing billable hours, and ultimately serve more clients more effectively.

The justice gap is real, whether it’s caused by too few attorneys in rural counties or too much noise in competitive metro markets. The underlying problem is the same: qualified attorneys struggling to connect with people who need their help.

AI won’t solve that problem alone. But lawyers who use it thoughtfully (who see it as a way to extend their reach and amplify their expertise rather than replace their judgment) might just level a playing field that’s been tilted toward whoever has the biggest marketing budget.

And that’s not a bad place to start.