Is AI Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law?

Generally speaking, the practice of law is when a person takes facts and applies it to legal principles (or rules, statutes, etc.) and draws a conclusion. The American Bar Association's model definition of the "practice of law" is "the application of legal principles and judgment with regard to the circumstances or objectives of a person that require the knowledge and skill of a person trained in the law." For example, to collect facts, a corporate lawyer may discuss with a company representative a contract the company signed with another party. The corporate lawyer would then apply principles of contract law, and draw a conclusion that, for instance, the company has not breached the contract. The foregoing would be the "practice of law."

Under nearly every state's laws, only licensed attorneys are permitted to engage in the "practice of law." Therefore, any person who practices law without a license is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The State Bar of California states:

In California, only attorneys can practice law. When someone who is not licensed to practice law provides services that can only be performed by attorneys, that is called the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). UPL is a crime.

Similarly, Utah's law, section 78A-9-103, states that "an individual may not practice law . . . within this state if that individual: (a) is not admitted and licensed to practice law within this state . . . ."

Despite the above long-standing laws against the unauthorized practice of law, it seems that nearly every AI tool gives legal advice when prompted. For instance, when I ask an AI tool the following question, I got the following response:

Question: If I represent a company that signed an agreement for the personal services of a contractor. But the contractor provided subpart services, that didn't meet the quality level we agreed to in the contract. Is that a breach of contract?

AI's Response: (its several paragraphs long, so I'm drastically shortening it) Yes — delivering services below the agreed quality level can constitute a breach of contract, but whether it legally qualifies depends on the contract language and the severity of the shortfall.

The question is whether the above is the "practice of law" or whether an argument can be made that if an AI model is engaged in probabilistic reasoning, it is somehow engaged in something different than the "practice of law"?

The vast majority of courts have not addressed the above questions. The ones that have conclude using AI to provide legal advice is the unauthorized practice of law. In Towner v. A Place for Rover Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00553-NJW (U.S.W.D. Sept. 10, 2025), a pro se plaintiff requested reasonable accommodations from the court (due to his disabilities), including "that he be permitted 'to use a laptop computer with high-speed Wi-Fi access during the hearing for real-time reference to case files and legal tools, including Grok AI (for quick factual recall and organization, mitigating memory loss) and Decisis (for legal research).'" The court ruled plaintiff could use AI tools for "basic functions like document retrieval and reviewing pre-organized materials." But plaintiff was not permitted to use "AI to generate real-time responses to the Court's questions during oral argument, as this would undermine the fundamental nature of oral advocacy and could constitute unauthorized practice of law by a non-attorney, artificial-intelligence system." (Emphasis added).

On its face, it seems AI (if prompted) engages in the practice of law. For instance, in our above example concerning breach of contract, we provided facts to the AI (through a prompt), and the AI then provided a legal conclusion. Yet, neither the AI tool nor the AI lab that created the tool are licensed attorneys. If the foregoing is the "practice of law," it raises several questions: Who exactly is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, the AI lab or the model (e.g., ChatGPT or OpenAI)? To the extent non-attorneys use these AI tools to assist other non-attorneys, are these tools aiding and abetting the unauthorized practice of law? And, should AI be permitted to engage in the practice of law if these AI tools are expanding access to justice?

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and SARG Law. You should consult a qualified attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.