Toward national regulation of legal technology: a path forward for access to justice

Objective: to study legal technologies as a tool for transforming the legal services market and improving access to justice.

Methods: the article uses general dialectical method of cognition, as well as general scientific (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction) and specific scientific (formal-legal) research methods.

Results: legal technology can help close the access-to-justice gap by increasing efficiency, democratizing access to information, and helping consumers solve their own legal problems or connecting them with lawyers who can. However, without proper design, technology can also consolidate power, automate bias, and magnify inequality. The state-by-state regulation of legal services has not adapted to the emerging technology-driven landscape that is continually being reshaped by artificial intelligence-driven tools like ChatGPT. Confusion abounds concerning whether use of these technologies amounts to unauthorized practice of law, leads to discrimination, adequately protects client data, violates the duty of technological competence, or requires prohibited cross-industry business structures. Despite widespread calls for regulatory reforms that respond to these uncertainties, few jurisdictions have acted, as little data exists about the use, benefits, and harms of rapidly emerging legal technologies.

Scientific novelty: This article argues that, in light of these problems, regulatory reform processes should be explored at the national level, where expertise, as well as empirical benefits and economic advantages, would yield more informed and impactful reforms aimed at balancing consumer protection and access to justice. The article provides a comprehensive proposal for an opt-in national legal services “sandbox” – a regulatory reform mechanism that carefully tests innovative services through temporary safe harbors and data generation that leads to more informed regulatory decision-making. Although legal services are traditionally regulated at the state level, other industries have benefited from licensing individuals locally while regulating the technologies they use nationally, and state bars already rely on national entities to help with other regulatory functions, like drafting rules of professional conduct. Legal technology’s potential to help close the justice gap – a national crisis – warrants a similar national response.

Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in scientific, pedagogical and law enforcement activities when considering the issues related to legal technologies.

1. Alteneder, K., & Rexer, L. (2014). Consumer Centric Design: The Key to 100% Access. Journal of the Law Society, 16(5), 13.

2. Asay, C. D. (2020). Artificial Stupidity. William & Mary Law Review, 61, 1193.

3. Baxter, R. (2022). Dereliction of Duty: State-Bar Inaction in Response to America's Access-to-Justice Crisis. Yale Law Journal Forum, 132, 228.

4. Brescia, R. H., McCarthy, W. A., McDonald, A. M., Potts, K. B., & Rivais, C. (2015). Embracing Disruption: How Technological Change in the Delivery of Legal Services Can Improve Access to Justice. Albany Law Review, 78, 553–554.

5. Cabral, J. E., Chavan, A., Clarke, T. M., Greacen, J., Hough, B. R., Rexer, L., Ribadeneyra, J., & Zorza, R. (2012). Using Technology to Enhance Access to Justice. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 26, 257.

6. Cruz, S. E. (2019). Coding for Cultural Competency: Expanding Access to Justice with Technology. Tennessee Law Review, 86, 364.

7. Cyphert, A. B. (2021). A Human Being Wrote This Law Review Article: GPT-3 and the Practice of Law. UC Davis Law Review, 55, 404.

8. Fortney, S. S. (2019). Online Legal Document Providers and the Public Interest: Using a Certification Approach to Balance Access to Justice and Public Protection. Oklahoma Law Review, 72, 94–95.

9. Gordon, R. W. (2019). Lawyers, the Legal Profession & Access to Justice in the United States: A Brief History. Daedalus, 148(177), 177–178.

10. Greely, H. T. (2020). The Law of the Tetrapods. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 22, 266.

11. Green, B. A. (2023). Why State Courts Should Authorize Nonlawyers to Practice Law. Fordham Law Review, 91, 1274.

12. Guttenberg, J. A. (2012). Practicing Law in the Twenty-First Century in a Twentieth (Nineteenth) Century Straightjacket: Something Has to Give. Michigan State Law Review, 2012, 415–491.

13. Hadfield, G. K., & Rhode, D. L. (2016). How to Regulate Legal Services to Promote Access, Innovation, and the Quality of Lawyering. Hastings Law Journal, 67, 1195.

14. Himonas, D. G., & Hubbard, T. J. (2020). Democratizing the rule of law. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, 16(2), 261–263.

15. Jewel, L. A. (2017). The Indie Lawyer of the Future: How New Technology, Cultural Trends, and Market Forces Can Transform the Solo Practice of Law. SMU Science and Technology Law Review, 17, 340.

16. Johnson, L. D. (2020). Navigating Technology Competence in Transactional Practice. Villanova Law Review, 65, 163.

17. Kluttz, D. N., & Mulligan, D. K. (2019). Automated Decision Support Technologies and the Legal Profession. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34, 874. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3443063

18. Knake Jefferson, R. N. (2012). Democratizing the Delivery of Legal Services. Ohio State Law Journal, 73(6), 44–45.

19. Kunkel, R. (2019). Rationing Justice in the 21st Century: Technocracy and Technology in the Access to Justice Movement. University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, 18, 382–383.

20. McCauley, J. (2016). The Future of the Practice of Law: Can Alternative Business Structures for the Legal Profession Improve Access to Legal Services? University of Richmond Law Review, 51, 55, 59.

21. McPeak, A. (2019). Disruptive Technology and the Ethical Lawyer. University of Toledo Law Review, 50, 466.

22. Medianik, K. (2018). Artificially Intelligent Lawyers: Updating the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in Accordance with the New Technological Era. Cardozo Law Review, 39, 1515.

23. Moore, T. R. (2019). The Upgraded Lawyer: Modern Technology and Its Impact on the Legal Profession. UDC/DCSL Law Review, 21, 27.

24. Pasquale, F., & Cashwell, G. (2015). Four Futures of Legal Automation. UCLA Law Review Discourse, 63, 34.

25. Perlman, A. M. (2015). Towards the Law of Legal Services. Cardozo Law Review, 37, 82–83.

26. Poppe, E. S. T. (2019). The Future Is Bright Complicated: AI, Apps & Access to Justice. Oklahoma Law Review, 72, 188.

27. Rhode, D. L., & Ricca, L. B. (2014). Protecting the Profession or the Public? Rethinking Unauthorized-Practice Enforcement. Fordham Law Review, 82, 2588.

28. Sandefur, R. L. (2020). Legal Advice from Nonlawyers: Consumer Demand, Provider Quality, and Public Harms. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 16, 312.

29. Sandefur, R. L., & Denne, E. (2022). Access to Justice and Legal Services Regulatory Reform. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 18, 38.

30. Schmitz, A. J. (2020). Measuring "Access to Justice" in the Rush to Digitize. Fordham Law Review, 88, 2393.

31. Sharkey, C. M., & Fodouop, K. M. K. (2022). AI and the Regulatory Paradigm Shift at the FDA. Duke Law Journal Online, 72, 107–108.

32. Simshaw, D. (2022). Access to AI Justice: Avoiding an Inequitable Two-Tiered System of Legal Services. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 24, 150.

33. Simshaw, D. (2023). Toward National Regulation of Legal Technology: a Path Forward for Access to Justice. Fordham Law Review, 92(1), 1.

34. Staudt, R. W. (2009). All the Wild Possibilities: Technology That Attacks Barriers to Access to Justice. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 42, 1122.

35. Tepper, R. L. (2020). The Flexible Lawyer: Promoting Agility and Innovation. Arizona Attorney, 57, 28.

36. Terry, L. S., Mark, S., & Gordon, T. (2012). Trends and Challenges in Lawyer Regulation: The Impact of Globalization and Technology. Fordham Law Review, 80, 2663.

37. Wald, E. (2022). The Access and Justice Imperatives of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 35, 421.

38. Walters, E. (2019). The Model Rules of Autonomous Conduct: Ethical Responsibilities of Lawyers and Artificial Intelligence. Georgia State University Law Review, 35, 1076.

39. Yu, P. K. (2020). The Algorithmic Divide and Equality in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Florida Law Review, 72, 344.