Projects

Regulating AI in Legal Services

Project Status: Toolkit & Resources Released; Additional Guidance Underway

Woman using an AI chat bot

Recommendations for a Phased Approach to Regulating the Use of AI

IAALS has been at the forefront of efforts to rethink how the legal profession regulates the delivery of legal services. While the legal profession has been abuzz with questions about how lawyers should (or should not) use AI in their practice, how judges might use it in their courtrooms, and how it might outperform law students on the bar exam, how AI might deliver legal services directly to the public has received less fanfare.

Toolkit for Regulators & Leaders Exploring Approaches to AI in Legal Services

This toolkit, developed by IAALS and the Duke Center on Law & Tech, provides resources that are intended to support exploration of the Phase 1 “soft power” approaches to legal regulation—non-binding strategies like guidance, best practices, and prosecutorial discretion that influence behavior without formal rule changes.

  • Report cover with title and image of woman using AI

    Prosecutorial Guidance and Non-Prosecution Policies

    A Pragmatic Path Forward for AI in Legal Services

    These policies are a practical, near-term way for regulators to create room for responsible AI and tech-powered legal tools while preserving consumer protection. This toolkit is designed to help regulators and leaders consider whether this regulatory…

    Download (PDF)
Illustration with AI giving legal advice to a consumer

Courts, legal aid, and entrepreneurs have already been building tech-powered legal tools that serve those in need, but without changes to unauthorized practice of law (UPL), these legal-specific innovations operate in a regulatory environment that creates uncertainty and limits their potential reach and impact. UPL must change to allow for responsible innovation while still protecting consumers. With prosecutorial guidance and non-prosecution policies, regulators can publicly state which categories of AI and tech-powered legal tool conduct they will and will not prioritize for UPL enforcement, providing the clarity innovators need to move forward.

This toolkit draws on Colorado's experience adopting a UPL non-prosecution policy, along with input from more than 250 stakeholders over two years of convenings, to offer a modular set of building blocks other jurisdictions can adapt.

Colorado’s experience shows that regulators can provide greater clarity around UPL enforcement without abandoning their responsibility to protect consumers. 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.

— Jessica Yates

Attorney Regulation Counsel, Colorado Supreme Court