[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael Berman.]
In Nippon Life Ins. Co. of America v. OpenAI Foundation, et al., No. 1:26-cv-02448 (N.D. Ill. Mar 4, 2026), the plaintiff alleges that: “As a product of OPENAI, ChatGPT engages in the practice of law by providing users with legal analysis, legal advice, legal research, and produces drafted legal documents.” It alleges that OpenAI is not a lawyer and claims damages for alleged unauthorized practice of law. See Does OpenAI Provide Legal Assistance? (Mar. 11, 2026).
In Colorado policy could shield AI from complaints regarding unauthorized practice of law (ABA Journal Mar. 18, 2026), Amanda Robert wrote:
In September, the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel adopted a first-of-its-kind “nonprosecution policy” that deprioritizes the UPL1 prosecution of developers of legal-help technology tools.
Ms. Robert describes this as a novel approach “to protect the developers of AI tools that aim to expand access to legal services.”
A subcommittee of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Practice of Law developed the policy. Id. It will sunset after three years: “It includes specific safeguards, including that developers must be supervised by lawyers and clearly disclose that they are not lawyers.” Id.
Jessica Yates, Esq., is quoted as saying that the policy is designed for pro se litigants, such as tenants trying to resolve disputes with landlords or insurance companies.
Jessica Bednarz, the director of legal services and the profession at the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, also was a member of the UPL and AI subcommittee, gave the following example:
[S]he points to Courtroom5, a platform that uses AI to help people represent themselves in court. According to a recent report from the IAALS on how to regulate the use of AI in the delivery of legal services, it has helped tens of thousands of people.
“These legal tech entrepreneurs are a really important piece of expanding the legal service delivery ecosystem,” Bednarz says. “We really need them as part of that in order to close the justice gap.”
Id.
The article states that “IAALS is partnering with the Duke Center on Law & Technology at the Duke University School of Law to develop a toolkit for other states that are interested in implementing nonprosecution policies, Bednarz adds.”
Ms. Robert reports that, in Texas, a legal form and instruction kit was deemed to be UPL; however, “Texas legislature amended the statute to exclude computer software from the definition of UPL, as long as products clearly said they were not a substitute for an attorney.”
Texas legislature amended the statute to exclude computer software from the definition of UPL, as long as products clearly said they were not a substitute for an attorney.
Colorado policy could shield AI from complaints regarding unauthorized practice of law (ABA Journal Mar. 18, 2026).
Lucian Pera, a past chair of the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility and a member of the New York City Bar Association’s Presidential Task Force on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies, said that “AI isn’t UPL.” He wrote “that ‘legal advice’ must be provided by lawyers, but ‘legal information’ can be dispensed by anyone. Or, in this case, anything.” Id.
In addition to the Nippon case, see:
- “Against an AI Privilege” – Are Prompts Discoverable? Is Output? (Jan. 2, 2026);
- A.I. Documents Deemed Not Privileged (Feb. 12, 2026);
- A.I. Privilege, Heppner, and How Did the Court Learn About the Absence of Certain Attorney-Client Communications Between Mr. Heppner and His Attorneys? (Mar. 2, 2026);
- “Two Courts, Two Answers: When Does Using AI Waive Privilege?” (Mar. 3, 2026).
Note
- Unauthorized practice of law. ↩︎
Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.
