AI and "unauthorized practice of law"

[asdasd]

Jurisdiction

US Federal Law

I have a question about AI-generated answers to legal questions and "unauthorized practice of law".

In short, when is an answer classified as "unauthorized practice of law"? Can a website publish any kind of answer to legal questions at all without lawyer review? Where do you draw the line?

By the way, the same rules must apply to this forum as for AI.

 

[Zigner]

UPL is not a Federal matter (unless it deals with Federal matters, of course.)

 

[Tax Counsel]

I have a question about AI-generated answers to legal questions and "unauthorized practice of law".

In short, when is an answer classified as "unauthorized practice of law"? Can a website publish any kind of answer to legal questions at all without lawyer review? Where do you draw the line?

By the way, the same rules must apply to this forum as for AI.

In general, line is crossed when you go from providing general information about the law to providing specific legal advice based on his or her individual circumstances. For example, giving general information about what state law requires for a will to be valid would not be the practice of law. But drafting a will specifically for someone to meet their individual needs would cross the line into the unauthorized practice of (UPL).

At the present time the large language AI models (LLM AI) designed to answer any question on any subject (like chat GPT) out there don't do a great job overall at legal tasks. Sometimes they provide some reasonably accurate information, at others the information is wildly off. There are some AI assisted systems that aid lawyers in their work that work pretty well. But those are systems designed for a narrow purpose. And the lawyers using it are ultimately responsible for the work done for their client. The lawyer must always review the product he or she gets from any automated system to ensure its accuracy and that it meets what the client requires.

I would not recommend anyone rely blindly on answers provided by LLM AI to any important task, especially those involving such things as legal, medical, or financial advice. There are several reasons for that, the big one being that those chat bots, however impressive looking their output is, are not yet good enough to replace the human professionals in those fields. Among other things their answers so far have instances of providing wrong information and, just as important, they often leave out entirely some things that may be critical to a client's or patient's situation.

The AI era is relatively new. We've seen glimpses of some amazing things that can be done with AI. But it's not reliable enough to replace professionals in those fields. I have no idea where the AI tech will take us. I suspect that there will always be some things for which they just are not well suited to do.

 

[Tax Counsel]

UPL is not a Federal matter (unless it deals with Federal matters, of course.)

It is the state that licenses and regulates the legal profession. When it comes to UPL, that's a state matter. If a lawyer violates some provision of the UPL rules in his or her state in federal court or before a federal agency, the federal government in general can do two things: it may refer the matter to the appropriate disciplinary agency of the state in which the lawyer is licensed and it may refuse to recognize that attorney and bar that attorney from practicing before that court or agency. But the feds cannot discipline a lawyer for UPL violations by, for examine, disbarring or suspending that lawyer from the practice of law. That's a decision for the states. That would change if the federal government takes over the task of licensing and regulating the practice of law. Whether that's the way we ought to go has been a topic debated by lawyers for decades.

 

[flyingron]

Don't be this guy: Lawyer cites fake cases generated by ChatGPT in legal brief

It doesn't fly well with the judge.

 

[asdasd]

Thank you @Tax Counsel that was helpful.

Let's say someone has been scammed. Bought something and got nothing, scammer lives in another state. The victim is looking for help from a chatbot and gets a step by step guide. You know, contact the scammer, note evidence then small claims court maybe and last step consult with an attorney.

The amount in question has obviously been mentioned, and states.

Would that be practice of law?

 

[Zigner]

Contact the scammer: Not "legal advice".
Note evidence: Not "legal advice".
Go to small claims court: Not generally "legal advice", but there could be some circumstances where this advice may be problematic, although it is unlikely to be a problem.
Consult with an attorney: Not "legal advice".

With that said, the last two steps are reversed.

 

[Zigner]

It is the state that licenses and regulates the legal profession. When it comes to UPL, that's a state matter. If a lawyer violates some provision of the UPL rules in his or her state in federal court or before a federal agency, the federal government in general can do two things: it may refer the matter to the appropriate disciplinary agency of the state in which the lawyer is licensed and it may refuse to recognize that attorney and bar that attorney from practicing before that court or agency. But the feds cannot discipline a lawyer for UPL violations by, for examine, disbarring or suspending that lawyer from the practice of law. That's a decision for the states. That would change if the federal government takes over the task of licensing and regulating the practice of law. Whether that's the way we ought to go has been a topic debated by lawyers for decades.

Thanks for the explanation