Two judicial circuits in Florida adopt rule on use of AI

 Two of Florida’s largest judicial circuits now require lawyers and self-represented litigants to disclose AI-generated court submissions, and to certify their accuracy, but according to at least one commentator the new rule essentially just "reminds lawyers of something that predates computers, the internet, and probably most of the courthouses we practice in today: if you put your name on a filing, you are responsible for what is in it."  For more on the story go here and here.

It is true that the new rule states the obvious: that it is required that all AI-generated content must be reviewed for accuracy.  But the new rule goes further by requiring actual disclosure of the use of AI, something I don't think many other jurisdictions are requiring explicitly yet.

According to one source, the order states that “[a]ny attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any generative artificial intelligence tool in the preparation of a pleading, motion, memorandum, response, proposed order, or other court record, must disclose such use on the face of the filing.”

Interestingly, the two circuits apparently did not agree on the appropriate sanctions for violations of the rule.

Failure to comply with the order in the 11th Judicial Circuit could lead to sanctions that include, “striking of the filing; denial of requested relief; monetary sanctions; contempt proceedings; referral to The Florida Bar or other appropriate authority; and any other sanction deemed appropriate by the Court.”

Failure to comply with the order in the 17th Judicial Circuit could lead to sanctions that include, “contempt; striking of pleadings or dismissal of action; fines and/or the imposition of attorney’s fees; and referral to The Florida Bar for disciplinary proceedings.”

Colorado moves to ban fee sharing with nonlawyers and alternative business structures

 As you probably know, the rules of professional conduct in most states ban lawyers from sharing fees with non-lawyers and also ban non-lawyers from owning an interest in law firms.  However, in recent years, there has been a strong trend against these types of rules and some states and Puerto Rico have amended them or abandoned them entirely, with others seriously considering doing so too.

I thought this trend was decidedly (although slowly) moving in the direction of recognizing alternative business structures in most states.  But maybe I was wrong.  After some conflicting reports on whether the experiments in Arizona and Utah turned out to be a positive move (see here and here), maybe the trend has slowed down.  And now comes news that in Colorado, the idea appears to have been rejected outright.

The ABA Journal is reporting that Colorado has passed a bill that bans fee sharing with nonlawyers. Under the bill, known as the Colorado Legal Practice Integrity and Fee-Sharing Prohibition Act, lawyers and law firms in the state are prohibited from sharing legal fees or revenues with nonlawyers or alternative business structures, which are legal entities that are controlled or managed by nonlawyers.

The bill is based on the proposition that “[f]inancial arrangements that provide nonlawyers with an economic interest in law firms and their fees, revenues or case outcomes, however structured, threaten a lawyer’s duties of loyalty to their client, confidentiality and professional independence.”  This proposition is, as you would expect, challenged by those who support changing the system to allow alternative business structures.

It will be interesting to see if the bill is signed into law and, more importantly, whether it will influence the discussion of the issue in other jurisdictions.

For all my posts on issues related to alternative business structures, go here and scroll down.

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.

ABA Task Force Report on AI in the practice of law

 I recently attended a program on the "Top Ten" topics in legal ethics for 2025 and I bet you will not be surprised to learn that number one was a collection of issues related to the use of AI in the practice of law.  And, for that reason, it is important to report that the ABA Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence recently published its 2025 report.

As reported by Bob Ambrogi in Law Sites, 

Artificial intelligence is no longer an abstract or experimental technology for lawyers – it is rapidly becoming core infrastructure for law practice, courts, legal education and access-to-justice efforts, and the legal profession must now shift its focus from whether to use AI to how to govern, supervise and integrate it responsibly.

That is the central conclusion of a report released yesterday from the American Bar Association’s Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence, a 56-page assessment that takes stock of how AI is already reshaping the profession and discusses the risks, opportunities and unresolved challenges that lie ahead.

The report, Addressing the Legal Challenges of AI: Year 2 Report on the Impact of AI on the Practice of Law, arrives at what the Task Force calls a “pivotal moment” for the profession. AI adoption has accelerated dramatically over the past year, pushing lawyers, judges, regulators and educators into unfamiliar terrain that demands new ethical frameworks, governance models and competencies.

You can get a free copy of the report here. 

Look out for more commentary in the next few weeks.  I just saw the first one in 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.

Comment on Puerto Rico's newly adopted rule on technological competence

 As you probably know, paragraph 8 of the comment to Model Rule 1.1 (Competence) states, among other things, that "to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology."  This statement has since been adopted and integrated into the comments of the rules in about 40 states.

Puerto Rico, however, recently adopted new rules (based on a translation of the Model Rules) and the notion of technological competence appears in a specific rule rather than in a comment to the rule on competence.  

In a comment posted in Above the Law, the author argues that "the Puerto Rico Supreme Court came out with a much more realistic and impactful definition of a lawyer’s technological competence obligations than that promulgated by some 40 states" and that "the Puerto Rican rules are a stronger statement about competence and suggest why it is so important."

You can read the full comment here.

Comment on Puerto Rico's newly adopted rule that allows non-lawyers to partially own law firms

 Bob Ambrogi has posted a comment on Puerto Rico's newly adopted rule allowing non-lawyers to partially own Law Firms here.

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.

Comment on recent ABA Opinion on generative AI

 Back in July I posted that the ABA had recently issued an ethics opinion on generative Ai and the practice of law. I am writing about it again today to let you know that just recently The Law for Lawyers Today published a comment on the opinion here.

Utah considers plan to allow law graduates to practice without having to take the bar exam

Above the Law is reporting (here) that the Utah Supreme Court recently released a plan to allow graduates of American Bar Association-accredited law schools to practice in the state after completing 240 hours of practice under the supervision of an experienced attorney, along with other requirements.  This would open the door for graduates to avoid taking the bar exam.  The ABA Journal has more on the story (and some links) 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.

Breaking Down the ABA’s Guidance on Using Generative AI in Legal Practice

A recent article breaking Down the ABA’s guidance on using generative AI in legal practice is available 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.