Leadership Center for Attorney General Studies

Imagine using an app to fight a parking ticket, draft a legal document, or even get advice on starting a lawsuit – all powered by artificial intelligence. AI tools designed for legal tasks are rapidly becoming more sophisticated and available. While they promise to make legal help more accessible, they also raise a critical question: When does an AI tool cross the line from helpful assistant to engaging in the “unauthorized practice of law”? This is a complex issue with varying rules across states, and it’s drawing attention from consumer protectors like State Attorneys General (AGs).

What is the “Unauthorized Practice of Law” (UPL)?

Most states have rules defining the “practice of law” and prohibit individuals or companies who aren’t licensed attorneys from engaging in it. This is known as the Unauthorized Practice of Law, or UPL. The core purpose of UPL rules is consumer protection – to ensure that people seeking legal help receive competent and ethical advice from qualified professionals who are accountable for their work.

What exactly constitutes the “practice of law” can vary, but it often includes tasks like:

• Giving legal advice specific to someone’s situation.
• Representing someone in court or negotiations.
• Preparing legal documents intended to affect someone’s rights.

Enforcing these rules also varies; sometimes it falls to the state supreme court, the state bar association, or, in some states, prosecutors like the State AG.

AI Enters the Legal World

Since powerful AI emerged, developers have created specialized AI tools targeting legal tasks. Some are designed for lawyers to help with research and drafting. However, others are marketed directly to the public, offering to help non-lawyers navigate legal issues with minimal or no oversight from a human attorney.

Examples include services that claim to help users:

• Contest parking tickets or challenge corporations.
• Draft lawsuits without needing a lawyer.
• Access tools and guidance for representing themselves in court.

These tools are becoming more capable, potentially reaching a point where they can perform many tasks traditionally done by lawyers.

Crossing the Line? The UPL Debate

Do these AI tools violate UPL rules? It’s a grey area. Are they simply providing information and document templates (generally allowed), or are they providing personalized legal advice and services (generally restricted to lawyers)?

The answer isn’t clear partly because:

• AI Capabilities: Advanced AI can tailor responses and generate complex documents that feel like personalized advice.
• Varying Definitions: UPL rules differ significantly from state to state, and many were written long before AI existed.
• Lack of Precedent: This is relatively new territory for regulators and courts.

States are reacting differently. Utah created a “regulatory sandbox” to allow innovative legal services (potentially including AI) to operate under supervision with relaxed rules. Iowa’s state bar seems cautiously open, offering guidance to lawyers on using AI. Florida, conversely, has issued more restrictive guidance, suggesting AI tools should be treated like non-lawyer assistants with limited capabilities.

Potential Promises and Pitfalls

Legal AI tools could potentially bridge the “access to justice” gap, helping people with simpler legal matters who can’t afford a lawyer. However, the risks are significant:

• Inaccurate Advice: AI can make mistakes (“hallucinate”) or provide advice that’s incorrect or unsuitable for a specific situation.
• Lack of Accountability: If an AI tool gives bad advice, who is responsible? Unlike a licensed lawyer, an AI tool isn’t necessarily bound by professional ethics rules or malpractice insurance.
• Deceptive Marketing: Companies might overstate their AI’s capabilities, leading consumers to rely on it inappropriately.
• Worsening Problems: Relying on flawed AI-generated documents or advice could harm a person’s legal case. AI tools tend to offer generic advice. If an individual has a unique case, then the tool may suggest an inapplicable strategy that wastes the individual’s time and perhaps hinders the court’s perception of them.

Why This Matters to You 

This debate directly impacts you as a consumer. You need to be able to trust that legal help, whether from a human or a tool, is competent and reliable. Misleading AI tools could lead you to make poor decisions, miss deadlines, or misunderstand your rights, potentially causing significant financial or personal harm. Ensuring transparency about whether you’re dealing with a licensed professional or an AI tool is crucial.

How State Attorneys General Can Help

State AGs play an important consumer protection role, and their involvement in the legal AI issue can take several forms, depending on their state’s laws:

• Investigation and Enforcement: In states where AGs have authority over UPL, they can investigate AI companies whose tools might be crossing the line and potentially bring enforcement actions.
• Consumer Protection: AGs can use general consumer protection laws to go after AI companies making false or deceptive claims about their legal tools’ capabilities.
• Collaboration and Clarification: AGs can work with state courts, bar associations, and legislatures to help clarify UPL rules in the context of AI and develop sensible regulations.
• Public Education: AGs can raise public awareness about the potential risks of relying solely on AI for legal help and advise consumers on how to seek qualified legal assistance.
• Fostering Dialogue: AGs can encourage open discussion within the legal community about how to responsibly integrate AI tools while upholding ethical standards and protecting the public.

Navigating the Future of Legal AI

AI offers exciting possibilities for the legal field, but its rapid advancement requires careful consideration and proactive regulation. Balancing the potential for increased access to justice with the fundamental need for competent, ethical legal services is key. As legal AI tools become more common, vigilance from consumers and thoughtful engagement from regulators like State AGs will be essential to ensure these technologies are used safely and responsibly.

Sources and Additional Reading

1. State UPL Enforcement Agencies, ABA Standing Comm. on Client Prot (last visited Apr. 15, 2025), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/state-upl-enforcement-al-wy.pdf.
2. 2022 Survey of Unlicensed Practice of Law Committees, ABA Ctr. for Pro. Resp. (2022), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/2022-upl-survey.pdf.
3. Benjamin D. Avery & Abril Z. Del Riego, Robot Lawyers & the Unauthorized Practice of Law, 26 Yale J.L. & Tech. 64 (2024).
4. DoNotPay, DoNotPay (last visited Apr. 15, 2025), https://donotpay.com/.
5. Bobby Allyn, A robot was scheduled to argue in court. Then came the jail threats, NPR (Jan. 25, 2023), https://www.npr.org/2023/01/25/1151435033/a-robot-was-scheduled-to-argue-in-court-then-came-the-jail-threats.
6. AI Law Introduces AI-Driven Legal Tool to Aid Pro Se Litigants in Drafting Lawsuits, NEWS10 ABC (Apr. 11, 2024), https://www.news10.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/770989488/ai-law-introduces-ai-driven-legal-tool-to-aid-pro-se-litigants-in-drafting-lawsuits/.
7. Courtroom5 Partners With Fastcase to Provide Unbundled Legal Services to Self-Represented Litigants, Fastcase (Aug. 18, 2021), https://www.fastcase.com/blog/courtroom5-partners-with-fastcase-to-provide-unbundled-legal-services-to-self-represented-litigants/.
8. Unauthorized Practice of Law, Utah State Bar (last visited Apr. 15, 2025), https://www.utahbar.org/accesstojustice/unauthorized-practice-of-law/.
9. Dillon Besser, The Iowa State Bar Association launches new AI tool for members, Iowa State Bar Ass’n Blog (Mar. 13, 2024), https://www.iowabar.org/?pg=IowaBarBlog&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=111750.
10. Fla. Bar Pro. Ethics Comm., Op. 24-1 (2024).