Comment on the effect of AI on the billable hour model

Above the Law has published a comment on how AI affects the billable hour model, here.

New report on Arizona program on alternative business structures does not paint a pretty picture

 Long time readers of this blog may remember that I have posted several comments on whether the regulatory changes in some jurisdictions allowing lawyers to share their practice with non-lawyers in so-called “alternative business structures” has resulted in their supposed goal: to provide better and more affordable access to legal representation. The data I have seen over the years has not been very supportive of this conclusion.  What I have read about the subject always suggested that allowing “innovative” ways to fund the practice of law has resulted in innovation in the practice of law (and with it, in more profits for those involved), but not necessarily in more, better or more affordable access to representation for those who need it.

This was the conclusion in a 2022 report about the effects of the 2020 changes in Arizona and Utah by the Stanford Center on the Legal Profession.  See here. The publication of a 2025 report by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) has been delayed, but the most recent published study has reported even more troubling results.

This new study, published in Arizona just recently, has found that the Arizona program has attracted profit-focused investors whose firms have generated a trail of consumer complaints (claiming harm to clients, violation of consumer protection laws, etc), financial conflicts of interest and inadequate oversight – essentially the types of dangers that those who originally opposed proposals to open the practice of law to non-lawyer investors feared would result from the experiment.  See here.

These results clash with some of the conclusions in the Stanford study, which found low rates of consumer complaints and which concluded that concerns about non-lawyer ownership compromising legal quality or professional standards had not materialized in any systematic way.  

But, as Robert Ambrogi explains in a comment on both studies, the different conclusions may be explained by looking at the methodology used to reach them.  While the Stanford study focused primarily on formal complaints filed through official channels, while the newer study in Arizona used more traditional techniques of interviewing affected consumers, reviewing court records and examining business practices in detail.

You should read Ambrogi’s very informative article carefully for more detail and links to more information; and we should all look forward to the upcoming publication of the IAALS report to compare the results.

More criticism about the decision on discovery of AI research by client

 In my most recent post I wrote about a recent decision holding that the result of a client's use of an AI platform was not protected from discovery.  See here.  I argued that the opinion makes perfect sense in terms of the applicable law and that, unlike other commentators, I did not think it was "groundbreaking."  But I also pointed out (and provided a link) to some thoughtful criticism of it.

I am writing today to give you another good short comment on the opinion which takes the position that  although the opinion is correct given the state of the law, it is bad decision, and an opportunity lost to be "groundbreaking."  As the author puts it "The ruling may be defensible under existing doctrine.  But it is a disaster for the 21st-century justice system" and that the ruling is "tone-deaf [...] to the high cost of legal services and to AI’s potential to reduce those costs."

The author concludes "Judge Rakoff’s ruling mechanically applied old rules to a new world.  Today, millions of Americans are turning to interactive AI to survive a legal system that has become too expensive and too complex for ordinary people to navigate. As a lawyer, I want my clients and my potential clients to keep using AI tools. The law should encourage them to do so, not punish them for it."

The article is short and worth reading.  It is called "AI Research Can Be Used Against Clients In Court. It Shouldn’t Be" and you can read it at Above the Law, here.

Illinois Supreme Court Approves Program Allowing Certified Individuals to Provide Limited Legal Assistance Under Supervision of a Lawyer

 Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis and the Illinois Supreme Court announced this week the approval in concept of a Community Justice Worker Program that will allow for certified individuals who are not lawyers to provide limited legal assistance in designated high-need areas of law under the supervision of an Illinois-licensed attorney.

Go here for more on the story.

A development that could bring massive change to the legal profession

 Michael Kennedy, Vermont's Bar Counsel, has posted a short comment on a recent development in the area of alternative business structures and its effect on the regulation of the profession and the practice of the profession.  You can read it here.

Montana Legal Services Association asks Supreme Court to allow non-lawyers to provide some legal services

 On September 15, 2025, the Montana Legal Services Association (MLSA) filed a petition with the Montana Supreme Court to adopt rules authorizing certified lay advocates to provide limited legal services to Justice Courts and City Courts. The petition proposes that MLSA will train and mentor these non-lawyer lay advocates, or Community Justice Workers, who will provide legal services in Order of Protection cases. On September 30, 2025, the Montana Supreme Court entered an administrative order seeking public comment on the proposal.

Public comment can be submitted through November 29, 2025, in writing to the Clerk of Supreme Court, 215 N. Sanders St., Room 323, Helena, MT 59601.

IAALS evaluates Utah's "regulatory sandbox"

In 2020, the Utah Supreme Court launched the nation’s first legal regulatory sandbox, arguably designed to open the door to new kinds of legal service providers and business structures and with the overall goal of expanding access to legal services while still protecting consumers.

Five years later, the Institute for the Advancement of the Americal Legal System (IAALS) is starting to publish its findings as an independent evaluator of the Sandbox.

The current version of their report is being published across a four-part report series.  The reports will be released on a rolling basis.  The first two are now available here, and it looks like the next two will also be posted to this same page, so bookmark it if this is something you are interested in.

Report on regulatory reform in Arizona and Utah after five years

LawSites has just published a detailed summary of a new report by Stanford Law School’s Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession on the state of regulatory reform five years after Arizona and Utah launched groundbreaking reforms to liberalize legal services regulation.  

You can download or read the full report as a pdf document here or you can read LawSites summary here.

Indiana Supreme Court follows Utah's example and approves funding for regulatory sandbox program to allow alternative business structures

 Earlier this month, the Indiana Supreme Court approved funding for a regulatory sandbox program to develop alternative legal services models.  The Court’s order is based on a recommendation from the Commission on Indiana’s Legal Future which the Indiana Supreme Court had created in April 2024.

The Commission recommended that Indiana’s regulatory sandbox be structured like Utah’s Office of Legal Services Innovation (Innovation Office). Utah’s Innovation Office was established by the Utah Supreme Court in 2020 to ensure consumers have access to modern and affordable legal services in a competitive marketplace.

DoNotPay now has to pay because of its claims about its non-existent AI lawyer

 Do you remember last year's stories about "DoNotPay," a company that claimed to have the "world's first robot lawyer"?   In case you don't, this was a company that claimed to offer legal services using a "robot lawyer" (aka "AI technology).  It made a lot of claims about the services it could provide, only it was revealed to be all smoke and mirrors.  I reported on the story throughout 2023 on  January 29, February 14, February 16, March 4, March 10, and March 17.

The story has made it back to the headlines of the week because on Wednesday, the FTC announced actions taken against five different companies making misleading claims about AI, including DoNotPay.  

In reply, DoNotPay as agreed to pay $193,000 to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations.  Besides paying the $193,000, DoNotPay agreed to refrain from making claims about its ability to substitute for legal services without evidence to support them.  

TechDirt has more details on this latest chapter on the DoNotPay saga here.  The ABA Journal has more on the settlement here.

Legal Rebels podcast on "the future of licensed paraprofessionals"

Long time readers of this blog are familiar with the trend in some jurisdictions to allow certain legal professionals who are not admitted lawyers to provide limited legal services.  A recent podcast of the ABA "legal rebels" page addressed the subject.  Its introduction reads as follows:

Much has been made of the gigantic access-to-justice gap in this country. According to a 2022 study by the Legal Services Corp., 92% of Americans do not receive any or enough help for a civil legal need. There are many reasons for this.

Lawyers can be expensive. People might not realize that they need lawyers. And let’s face it, lawyers are not the most likable or trustworthy people out there. We may not be used car salesmen or members of Congress, but we’re definitely in the neighborhood.

One possible way to help bridge the gap is to expand the pool of people eligible to practice law. Some states have experimented with licensing paralegals or paraprofessionals to handle limited legal matters. In recent years, states including Arizona, Utah, Minnesota and Oregon have started programs allowing paraprofessionals to practice limited areas of law under supervision or after many hours of training.

Of course, that raises age-old concerns about unauthorized practice of law. Those concerns have already helped derail one paraprofessional licensing program in Washington. Could they help take down some more?

In this episode the Legal Rebels Podcast, Eda Rosa talks about licensing paraprofessionals to perform legal tasks, as well as the importance of paralegals and paraprofessionals to the legal profession, with the ABA Journal’s Victor Li. She runs Eda Rosa LLC, a paralegal service and legal professional development training company and hosts the Let’s Talk Paralegal podcast.

You can listen to the full podcast here.  It is about 40 minutes long.

Washington State Bar proposal to allow non-lawyer owned entities to provide some legal services in the state

The Washington State Bar Association and a board created by the Washington Supreme Court have presented a proposal that, if approved by the Washington Supreme Court, would allow nonlawyer-owned entities to deliver legal services.

If the Washington Supreme Court gives its approval, nonlawyer entities could apply to offer legal services temporarily under an exemption to rules banning the unlicensed practice of law, according to a summary (here) on the Washington State Bar Association’s website.

The ABA Journal has more on the story here.

Texas Supreme Court Preliminarily Approves Delivery of Legal Services by Licensed Paraprofessionals and Court-Access Assistants

 A couple of days ago I posted that Washington is considering a proposal to allow alternative business structures for the practice of law.  In a related matter, now comes news that the Texas Supreme Court has preliminarily approved the delivery of legal services by licensed paralegals and other non-lawyer approved professionals.  This is part of a trend that has been (very slowly) developing among various jurisdictions.  Recently, New Hampshire expanded its program.  See here.

Go here for more on the story.

Washington considering following Utah and Arizona in allowing "alternative business structures" for the practice of law

As posted in the Washington Bar Association's website:  

As proposed, the pilot program on entity regulation would allow entities to provide legal and law-related services in Washington under time-bound, limited exemptions from the otherwise applicable rules and statutes governing entities practicing law. If approved by the Court, among U.S. jurisdictions, Washington would follow only Utah and Arizona in executing a plan to determine how the delivery of legal services by entities can be regulated in a manner that protects consumers and promotes broader access to legal services. Under the proposal, participating entities would be required to abide by a Supreme Court authorizing order detailing conditions on their participation, including adherence to rules of ethics and regular reporting of data and information relating to their delivery of services to the public.

You can provide feedback to the WSBA and Practice of Law Board during the next Board of Governors meeting Sept. 6-7 or via email at entityregulationpilot@wsba.org.

Go here for more information.

New Hampshire expands the program that allows non-laywers paraprofessionals to provide some legal services

 Long time readers of this blog may remember old posts about how some states have slowly approved regulation to allow “non-lawyer professionals” to provide legal services.  The terminology used to describe the professionals and the types of services varies quite a bit, but the idea is to allow certain trained professionals who are not admitted to the practice of law to provide some services that would otherwise be considered to be exclusively reserved for lawyers.  Obviously, the idea is to provide more (and perhaps less expensive) access to legal representation given that studies have always shown that there is a need for such access.

The success of these programs has also varied, with at least one eventually being abandoned, but that would be the subject of a different conversation.

I am writing today to report that, as of last month, New Hampshire extended such a program for another five years and expanded the “jurisdiction” of the professionals allowed to participate in it to include all state Circuit Courts.  Eligible paralegals under the program may appear in cases related to family law, domestic violence, stalking orders of protection, and landlord-tenant cases.  The new statutory language can be found in the New Hampshire Statutes, Title XXX: Occupations and Professions, Chapter 311 (Attorneys and Counselors), Section 311:2a (Legal Services by Paraprofessionals).  You can find a link to the section here, although as of the time of this post, the section’s language has not been updated with the newly approved statute.  The original statute (as of now) is here.  It is possible that some time soon you will be able to use this same link to see the new language, but as of now this link takes you to the statute that went into effect in 2023.  If you want the new version, look for the language adopted in June 2024.

Thank you very much to Jonathan Teller-Elsberg for the update!

Washington's Supreme Court Approves Three Ways To Skip The Bar Exam - Updated

March 20, 2024

The ABA Journal and Above the Law are reporting that the Washington Supreme Court has adopted alternative pathways to a law license, becoming the second state to do so in a little more than four months. The court approved three ways to bypass a bar exam, with different standards for law school graduates, law students and law clerks participating in a lawyer-tutoring program already in existence. All involve apprenticeships or internships.

You can read the different standards in the court's press release here.  The ABA Journal has more details here.  Above the Law has the story here.

UPDATE (April 13, 2024): Lex Blog has published a comment on the story here.

Free Legal Research Startup Now Offers AI Generated Summaries of All State Supreme and Appellate Opinions

 LawSites is reporting (here) that a new website that provides access to legal research called descrybe.ai is focused on using artificial intelligence to provide free and easy access to court opinions and that it recently began to offer access to AI-generated summaries of all available state supreme and appellate court opinions from throughout the United States. 

New Training for Lay Legal Advocates in Arizona Aims to Expand Access to Justice Statewide

 LawSites has the full story here.

Two articles on the justice gap and legal tech

 LawSites recently published two articles with commentary about the justice gap and legal tech that are worth reading.

In the first one, LawSites's editor Bob Ambrogi argues that "[t]he justice gap in legal technology is a reflection of the justice gap more generally, and both reflect a capitalist society in which the balance of wealth and resources is wildly out of whack. But more can be done. "  You can read the article here.

In response, Jess Lu and Mark Chandler argue that "Justice tech — legal tech that helps low-income folks with no or some ability to pay, that assists the lawyers who serve those folks, and that makes the courts more efficient and effective — must contend with a higher hurdle than wooing Silicon Valley VCs: the civil justice system itself."  The article is available here.

Podcast on the right to an attorney and the role of public defenders in the criminal justice system

 Here is a 50 minute NPR program on the right to an attorney and the role of public defenders in the criminal justice system.