In an increasingly digital legal landscape, understanding how technology influences access to justice and the ethical use of legal research tools is more important than ever. Ashley Krenelka Chase, an Associate Professor of Law at Stetson University College of Law, is a leading voice in exploring these issues. With a background as a law librarian and a scholar dedicated to improving access for incarcerated litigants and marginalized communities, she offers valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities presented by technological advancements in the legal field.
Q: How has the integration of technology transformed legal research and writing instruction at Stetson University College of Law?
A: We focus on integrating technology daily in legal research and writing. We think about how students are using technology and use that to inform what we do in the classroom. Even if students aren’t tied to their computers every day, we talk about what tech makes sense to incorporate into specific skills. Right now, we’re trying to focus on access to what they’ll have in practice versus in law school ,which influences how they think about technology. With generative AI, we’re exploring ways to incorporate it not to write legal documents, but to help start the process or transform one type of legal document into another, for example, turning a legal memo into a client letter. We emphasize that work still needs polishing and making your own. I also focus heavily on legal research technology, algorithms, and biases in platforms, so students think critically about what they’re using before doing research whether for class or clients. I want them to understand that just because a database says its legal research doesn’t mean it’s the best or most complete. Critical thinking, inspection, and drafting are essential to becoming good lawyers. I try to integrate this consistently, though there are varying approaches across the field.
Q: Your scholarship emphasizes access to justice for incarcerated litigants. What are the main barriers, and how can technology help?
A: Access to justice for incarcerated people can be achieved in different ways, but I focus on access to the court system filing paperwork, appealing sentences, and moving cases forward. Historically, inmates had legal research access through prison libraries, but starting in the 1990s, this has been rolled back. In 2019 , I looked at prison and law library budgets and saw a downward trend, which suggests inmates aren’t getting the legal materials they need. As a law librarian, I saw print material costs skyrocket, making it untenable to keep up with updates. The logical solution is to give people access to online legal research, but in the U.S., internet access isn’t recognized as a fundamental right, especially for inmates. Internet access in prisons is often limited or regulated sometimes just to 15 minutes a month or week and that’s not enough. Even if they access a database, they often don’t know how to use it, or the system is too slow. We need a consistent belief that internet access is essential in the 21st century and that this right should extend to incarcerated people, so they can get the information they need to navigate the legal system fairly.
Q: In your upcoming paper, you discuss the impact of information monopolies on marginalized communities. Can you give an example of how market concentration affects access to legal resources?
A: There are longstanding players in the legal information industry, originally publishers of print materials, who have shifted to online resources. We see a duopoly in the form of two major legal publishers providing online access. Smaller competitors try to enter with innovations like AI tools or visual case histories, but they often get bought out by these big companies because of the financial lure. This market concentration has led to just a few providers controlling access, with prices so high that many can’t afford it. For example, I can use Google Scholar for free, but it only goes back to the 1950s and lacks a citator. Paying thousands a month to the big providers is out of reach for most, which limits understanding of the law and access to full legal information. This restricts those who aren’t well-versed or don’t have resources from fully understanding or navigating the legal system.
Q: How do you see antitrust law evolving to better address issues of legal information access and equity?
A: I’m not an antitrust expert, but I’m excited about recent cases like the one against Apple. These cases suggest that tech companies’ market power is being scrutinized, and I hope that extends to legal research platforms. The government relies heavily on these platforms, with contracts and low costs, so challenging their dominance is complicated. It’s hard to admit that these companies benefit from a problem that harms others. I hope that increased scrutiny leads to more competition, encouraging the practicing bar to diversify their tools and reduce dependence on a few providers. Real change might be slow, but I remain hopeful.
Q: Your recent work explores under-the-radar platforms as solutions for incarcerated litigants. What are some promising models or initiatives?
A: I reached out to vLex and Fastcase, which recently merged, and learned they’re doing interesting work providing low-cost access for incarcerated people. Instead of flat fees, they charge prisons a dollar per bed per month, working closely with correctional systems to meet security needs. They avoid features like search histories to prevent misuse, and they modify interfaces like providing pop-up keyboards for inmates so the platforms are usable in prison environments. Their willingness to collaborate shows there’s opportunity to expand access for incarcerated populations. Smaller competitors could follow, recognizing the large number of incarcerated people as a market that needs legal resources. If companies meet these populations where they are, it could shift the legal research landscape toward greater inclusion.
Q: Regarding artificial intelligence, what safeguards are necessary to prevent misinformation and protect self-represented litigants?
A: Generative AI is mainly text completion software predicting the most likely response. It’s not inherently reliable for legal advice. We need education to help people understand its limitations. Transparency is critical once you input information, you should know what’s happening behind the scenes, what sources are used, and that responses should be cross-checked. Without access to verified legal materials, AI can hallucinate or produce inaccurate info, which is dangerous. Opening up legal research materials is essential so users can verify AI outputs and avoid misinformation.
Q: How should legal education adapt to prepare future lawyers for a landscape increasingly shaped by technology and access-to-justice issues?
A: We should start talking about these issues early, how technology impacts their lives outside of law, including bias and resource evaluation. Teaching students to critically analyze cases and legal sources is vital. They need to question how they access information, evaluate its reliability, and understand legal language. This will make them stronger lawyers who can adapt to rapid technological changes and new tools.
Q: Many lawyers experience burnout early in their careers. Do you have tips for managing that pressure?
A: My husband, a criminal appeals attorney, has a job with less face-to-face interaction but deals with many losses. Law school emphasizes winning, but losing is part of practice. Recognizing compassion fatigue both for clients and oneself is important. Supporting each other, sharing experiences, and talking openly about burnout help. Younger attorneys are starting to discuss burnout more, which is good. Using online groups or networks to connect and share struggles can help manage stress. The key is talking about it and understanding that burnout is normal; how you handle it makes the difference.
Q: What policy changes would you recommend to improve equitable access to legal information and justice for underserved populations?
A: Internet access should be a universal human right, especially in underserved and rural areas. The UN recognizes this, and we should implement it. We also need standardization state, federal, and local governments should provide consistent, accessible legal materials online. Making primary resources freely available and open source would help everyone understand the law. When big cases happen, the information should be accessible to the public, not just legal professionals. Open, transparent, and accessible legal information will help foster understanding and participation in justice.
Q: What do you think SSRN contributes to modern legal research and scholarship?
A: The more open access material we have, the stronger legal research becomes. I regularly use SSRN and Google Scholar. The government should do a better job making case law and statutes accessible so people can critique and understand the law. When information is behind paywalls, it’s hard to evaluate or critique it. Open access allows for more rigorous, transparent legal scholarship and public engagement. We also need to teach people how to critically evaluate information, especially with misinformation and fake news, so they can distinguish credible sources from unreliable ones.
More About Ashley Krenelka Chase
Ashley Krenelka Chase is an Associate Professor of Law at Stetson University College of Law, where she specializes in legal research, technology, and access to justice. With a background spanning nearly a decade as a law librarian and a focus on the intersection of research platforms and justice initiatives, Professor Chase advocates for ethical legal research and greater access to legal resources, especially for incarcerated litigants. She holds a B.A. from Bradley University, an M.A. from the University of South Florida, and a JD from the University of Dayton School of Law. Ashley’s scholarship focuses on the intersection of research, technology, and access to justice for incarcerated litigants.
You can see more work by Ashley Krenelka Chase on her SSRN Author page here