By: David Buko
Traditionally lawyers have not played well with non-lawyers in the realm of providing legal services. However, with the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) [1] and the ever-widening access to justice gap wherein low-income Americans receive no help or inadequate help for ninety-two percent of their most important civil legal problems. [2] However, a paradigm shift is in process. Companies such as Rocket Lawyer and LawGeex use AI technology to provide expedited and affordable legal services without paying the exorbitant prices charged by most lawyers. [3] Both companies would not be allowed to operate in more than three-quarters of the jurisdictions in the United States under the rules of professional responsibility (MRPC).[4]
Rule 5.4. of the MRPC has stood as a barrier to interdisciplinary innovation in the provision of legal services for decades.[5] That has changed to resounding positive results in one United States Jurisdiction: Utah. [6] The Utah State Supreme Court oversees the first United States based regulatory sandbox. [7] In a regulatory sandbox normally enforced regulations such as the state’s version of rule 5.4 are suspended, allowing for unprecedented collaboration and investment from non-law entities. [8] This results in legal services that transcend the cost barrier that prevents most people from seeking legal help.[9]
Proponents of regulatory sandboxes argue that the data generated is invaluable when it comes to implementing new technologies and assessing their real-world impacts without a constant fear of regulatory retaliation.[10] In turn this freedom spurs investment which increases the effectiveness of the technology and increases competition in the legal field. [11] Furthermore, regulatory sandboxes help provide transparency and protect consumers because any potential harms are closely monitored and weighed against the potential benefits. [12] If the harm is greater the services are no longer allowed to participate within the scheme. [13] In the three years that the program has been in operation there have only been only seven harm related complaints from over 55,000 distinct legal services being delivered. [14]
Opponents like the ABA caution that regulatory sandboxes do not come without risks. [15] Such risks include but are not limited to: incompetently delivered legal services, the sale of unnecessary legal services to clients, less pro bono work done by lawyers due to a faulty perception that distinctly tailored approaches are no longer needed, and the development of a two- tiered system of inferior AI justice which lower SES status Americans would be forced to utilize while the wealthy benefit from a more robust hybrid system of the best human lawyers augmented with the best AI that only the largest law firms can afford to calibrate and utilize.[16]
While the dangers are ominous, the domestic success of the Utah sandbox is a beacon of promise with the benefits clearly outweighing the harms substantially.[17]
—————-
Citations:
[1] Bernard Marr, The Future Of Lawyers: Legal Tech, AI, Big Data And Online Courts, Forbes (Jan. 17, 2020, 7:00 AM)
[2] Legal Services Corporation, The Justice Gap: The Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-income Americans 7 (2022)
[3] Ryan Nabil, Regulatory Sandbox Programs Can Promote Legal Innovation and Improve Access to Justice, The Hill (Oct. 9, 2021, 8:00 AM)
[4] Sam Skolnik, California Bar ‘Sandbox’ May Rattle Legal Competition for Firms, Bloomberg Law (May 11, 2021, 8:14 AM)
[5] Drew Simshaw, Access to A.I. Justice: Avoiding an Inequitable Two-Tiered System of Legal Services, 24 Yale J.L. & Tech 150, 221 (2022)
[6] Utah Innovation Office, Activity Report: July 2023 (2023)
[7] Supra. note 3.
[8] C. Thea Pitzen, Can Nonlawyers Close the Legal Services Gap?, GPSolo eReport, Apr. 21, 2022, at 11-13, American Bar Association
[9] Supra. note 3.
[10] OECD, Regulatory Sandboxes in Artificial Intelligence, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 356, at 13-15 (July 2023
[11] Id.
[12] Office of Legal Services Innovation, Innovation Office Manual at 1 (21st ed. 2021).
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Supra. note 8.
[16] Supra. note 5.
[17] Supra. note 6.