Why Using AI for Legal Help Can Cross into Unauthorized Practice of Law
As artificial intelligence tools become more advanced, many non-lawyers have begun experimenting with them to create legal documents, devise legal strategies, understand the court process, draft arguments, or interpret laws for themselves and others. While individuals in both New Jersey and New York are free to handle their own legal matters, including drafting their own filings and representing themselves, those permissions stop at the edge of self-representation. The moment a non-lawyer uses AI to generate legal materials for another person, even with the best of intentions, the situation potentially changes dramatically. The “practice of law” is defined broadly to include engaging in any conduct where legal knowledge, training, skill and ability are required. That broad definition matters in the age of AI. When a non-lawyer uses an AI system to produce legal arguments, interpret statutes, or prepare filings for someone else (even if they are not charging for these services), they are still engaging in conduct that requires legal judgment.
Unauthorized-practice rules are not mere technicalities. Their very purpose is to protect the public from unqualified individuals whose errors could cause serious harm. In addition to applying facts to legal principals, legal matters often involve strict deadlines, jurisdiction-specific rules, complex procedures, and consequences that can profoundly affect a person’s finances, rights, or freedom. AI tools, while impressive, can misstate the law, fabricate citations, overlook critical procedural requirements, or apply legal principles incorrectly. A non-lawyer relying on AI to “help” a friend, client, community member or customer may unintentionally provide dangerously flawed guidance, all without the training, ethical obligations, or accountability imposed on licensed attorneys.
AI can absolutely be a powerful resource in the hands of a qualified lawyer—improving research speed, spotting issues, and enhancing efficiency. But for non-lawyers, using AI to stand in place of an attorney exposes others to risk and may violate state law. Consumers should be cautious about replacing real legal counsel with automated tools, and non-lawyers should recognize that the guardrails around unauthorized practice exist to protect the public—not to preserve lawyers’ turf. The safest approach is clear: let lawyers use AI responsibly, but do not use AI as a substitute for the legal training, judgment, and professional duty that the law requires.
The information contained in this article is not legal advice and has not been updated to include changes in the law since this article was originally published.