IAALS and Duke Center on Law & Technology Release New Toolkit to Expand Responsible AI-Powered Legal Help
As millions of Americans struggle to access affordable legal help, IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, and the Duke Center on Law & Technology today released a new toolkit to help regulators of the legal profession address one of the barriers preventing AI-powered legal tools from reaching people who need them.
The AI Prosecutorial Guidance and Non-Prosecution Policy Toolkit focuses on unauthorized practice of law (UPL) rules, which vary widely across states, often creating uncertainty for organizations developing technology to help people with legal problems. The toolkit offers a practical alternative to waiting for formal rule changes. It shows regulators how prosecutorial guidance and non-prosecution policies can clarify the types of AI-powered legal-help tools they will and will not prioritize for UPL enforcement, while preserving meaningful consumer protections.
“Technology has enormous potential to help people identify legal problems, understand their options, and find meaningful help, but our regulatory structures have not kept pace,” said Jessica Bednarz, Director of Legal Services and the Profession at IAALS. “This toolkit gives regulators a way to act now rather than waiting years for formal rule changes.”
The vast majority of low- and middle-income Americans and small businesses are unable to access affordable legal help when they need it—and many people don’t recognize that the problems they face are legal problems in the first place. AI and other technologies can provide people with new ways to solve the legal problems in their lives.
“For people who cannot afford a lawyer, the alternative to a well-designed legal technology tool is often not traditional legal representation. It is no help at all,” said Sonja Ebron, CEO and co-founder of Courtroom5, an AI-powered, digital legal platform designed to help people represent themselves without a lawyer. “Innovators need the freedom to build solutions that work and clear standards for doing so responsibly. That combination can expand access to high-quality legal help at a scale our current system cannot.”
Among the toolkit’s key takeaways:
- Legal-specific AI tools warrant a different regulatory approach than general-purpose AI. Purpose-built legal tools can operate within more defined tasks and data sources, allowing for more tailored oversight and consumer safeguards.
- Consumer protections can be built into non-prosecution policies. Policies can include requirements related to transparency, privacy, informed consent, accuracy and reliability, misleading claims, remedies when problems occur, and referral to qualified human help when needed.
- Prosecutorial guidance can inform longer-term reform. These policies can be adopted and adjusted more quickly than formal rule changes, allowing regulators to learn what works and use that experience to inform future UPL regulation.
“Legal ethics obligations aren't red tape; they're the reason lawyers are trustworthy,” said Jeff Ward, Director of the Duke Center on Law & Technology and Clinical Professor of Law at Duke Law. “The problem is that our rules currently make it hardest for people carrying those obligations to build technology, and easiest for those carrying none. Any serious approach to AI and legal help has to bring expertise and accountability into the room, not keep them out.”
The toolkit draws on more than two years of work and input from more than 250 stakeholders, as well as Colorado’s experience becoming the first jurisdiction in the country to adopt a generally applicable UPL non-prosecution policy in September 2025. It offers building blocks that jurisdictions can adapt based on their own enforcement authority, regulatory structure, and local context.
“Colorado’s experience shows that regulators can provide greater clarity around UPL enforcement without abandoning their responsibility to protect consumers,” said Jessica Yates, Attorney Regulation Counsel for the Colorado Supreme Court. “Putting those enforcement priorities in writing gives regulators, innovators, and the public a clearer understanding of where the lines are, while giving us the opportunity to learn from what happens in practice.”
IAALS and the Duke Center on Law & Technology will support jurisdictions exploring these approaches through presentations, additional resources, and convenings focused on UPL reform and responsible innovation in legal help.
