Is Your Artificial Intelligence Guilty of the Unauthorized Practice of Law?

The Richmond Journal of Law & Technology’s article, “Is Your Artificial Intelligence Guilty of the Unauthorized Practice of Law?” by Thomas E. Spahn, explores the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and the legal profession, particularly focusing on ethics and the implications of AI potentially engaging in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL).

Key Points:

  1. AI in Law Practice:
    • AI’s increasing integration into law raises questions about whether its operations constitute “practicing law.”
    • Non-lawyers using AI to offer legal advice could face criminal UPL charges, and lawyers may be accused of enabling such practices.
  2. Defining the Practice of Law:
    • The definition of “practicing law” is notoriously vague, varying across jurisdictions, and often left to case-specific determinations.
    • Core activities generally include court appearances, drafting legal documents, and providing legal advice.
  3. AI as Legal Practice:
    • The article highlights historical challenges from technological and non-lawyer tools, like LegalZoom, which were accused of UPL but ultimately found ways to adapt through disclaimers and adjusted business practices.
    • Similar concerns apply to AI systems offering legal document generation or advice.
  4. Examples and Legal Precedents:
    • Case studies illustrate how courts and bars have treated UPL issues involving document preparation services, non-lawyer legal advice, and software like LegalZoom.
    • LegalZoom, in particular, has faced numerous lawsuits and regulatory challenges but has generally adapted by clarifying its services and disclaimers.
  5. Ethical Challenges for Lawyers:
    • Lawyers must avoid improperly assisting non-lawyers or AI in UPL.
    • They must ensure adequate supervision and avoid relinquishing control over client relationships or legal advice to AI systems.
  6. Predictions for AI:
    • Historical trends suggest that while lawyers and regulators may initially resist AI’s legal applications, societal and technological momentum will likely favor its integration over time.

Conclusion:

The article posits that as AI continues to evolve, it will increasingly challenge traditional boundaries of legal practice. Lawyers, regulators, and society must grapple with ethical, legal, and practical implications to define how AI can be responsibly used without compromising professional standards or public protection.