News

For many Americans, the cost of hiring an attorney makes professional help unattainable. When facing a legal problem, people often go it alone. They create their own documents, seek inexpert information from generally available tools like Google and ChatGPT. In most civil cases, at least one party represents themselves — and most of the time, these litigants lose, not because their claims lack merit, but because they lack knowledge of court procedures and the law itself.

Responsible legal technology might help to close this access-to-justice gap. The hope is that carefully designed self-service tools — powered by AI and other emerging technologies — may provide affordable, vetted, and accountable support for common issues such as landlord-tenant disputes, family law, small claims, and debt collections. When tested, transparent, and subject to clear standards, these tools can level the playing field for people unable to afford a lawyer.

Yet such solutions remain scarce, due in part to Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) rules. These regulations, though well-intentioned to protect consumers, discourage investment and development of responsible online legal services, says Duke Law’s Jeff Ward, director of the Duke Center on Law and Tech.

UPL rules restrict legal practice to licensed professionals admitted to a state’s bar. While aimed at maintaining standards and preventing fraud, they are inconsistent and unpredictably applied. In one state, AI tools may assist self-represented litigants in drafting filings, while in a neighboring state, the same activity could be deemed a crime. The center’s research has shown that this patchwork creates uncertainty, deterring innovators, investors, and even established organizations from building accountable legal tools that could safely expand access.

“UPL rules are different in every state,” Ward explained. “For legal tech providers, that means navigating 50 sets of rules and regulatory scrutiny that could—even for responsible, consumer-focused services—trigger criminal violations.”

Pushing for clarity to support innovation

Ward’s center has launched a new initiative to reform UPL rules and foster a market for legal tech solutions that meet high ethical, transparency and reliability standards.

“The primary goal of UPL rules should be to ensure the public receives reliable, ethical, and competent services,” Ward said. “But historically, they’ve been amorphous, uncertain, and unevenly applied. Clearer, more consistent regulations could encourage responsible innovation while still protecting consumers.”

The stakes are high. Without access to trustworthy tools, pro se litigants often turn to general-purpose platforms that might not have been designed with appropriate guardrails. Even in routine matters, inaccurate guidance can carry serious consequences: a tenant who mismanages an eviction response could lose their home, even with valid defenses. Transparent, tested legal tools designed with accountability in mind might reduce such risks.

Potential solutions

At least a dozen states — including Utah, California, and Arizona — are already exploring UPL reforms. Some have begun licensing trained non-lawyers to provide limited legal services, acknowledging that access needs often outweigh rigid boundaries. But building a uniform national standard will take time and legislative action.

Ward’s center and the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System co-hosted a series of webinars to clarify the issues and to identify practical reforms. One proposal is to develop prosecutorial guidance on UPL enforcement, clarifying what responsible online legal services are “safe” and which cross the line.

“They already make choices about enforcement,” Ward said. “We’re looking to develop best practices that give regulators clarity and innovators confidence.” Such standards could also create “safe harbors” for investors, reassuring them that transparent, consumer-focused tools won’t face arbitrary prosecution.

The ultimate goal is balance: protecting consumers while enabling accountable innovation.

“Innovators and investors aren’t afraid of regulation,” Ward said. “They want clarity. We have an opportunity to update a fundamental rule of professional responsibility in a way that preserves trust in legal services and creates space for responsible tools that expand access to justice.”