ANALYSIS: DoNotPay Lawsuits: A Setback for Justice Initiatives?

DoNotPay, the self-proclaimed “world’s first robot lawyer,” has become embroiled in three separate legal actions since February. At the heart of each action against the company that’s seeking to make legal information “accessible to everyone” with its app are allegations of unfair business practices and claims that the company is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

Nonlawyers hoping to get involved in the legal market have traditionally had a difficult time, thanks to Model Rule 5.4, unauthorized practice of law (UPL) statutes, and the protectionist nature of the profession—and this recent litigation doesn’t appear to help their cause. Changing the regulations surrounding practice of law requirements sparks intense controversy within the legal industry, with access to justice concerns often being at the forefront of the conversations.

While some states are exploring alternative legal business models, there have been some recent setbacks, including in California. Will these legal actions against DoNotPay further negatively impact access to justice initiatives?

DoNotPay: The Legal Woes

DoNotPay is a subscription-based mobile application that utilizes technology, such as artificial intelligence and chatbots, to provide greater access to legal services and information. Subscribers can avail themselves of services to help fight parking tickets, reduce property taxes, and file litigation in small claims court.

In February 2023, DoNotPay was expected to make its debut in a California court when a traffic court defendant planned on using the company’s AI-powered technology to essentially guide him through his defense. The plan was dropped after state bar officials threatened to prosecute.

Since then, two class action lawsuits and one pre-action discovery dispute—all unrelated to the traffic court case in California—have been filed against DoNotPay.

Faridian v. DoNotPay, Inc.

A DoNotPay consumer filed a class action lawsuit earlier this month in a California state court, alleging that the company violated California’s unfair competition law by holding itself out as a lawyer and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by providing legal services without a law license.

Jonathan Faridian claims that he used the company’s document drafting services under the belief that he was “purchasing legal documents and services that would be fit for use from a lawyer that was competent to provide them.” But many of the documents provided by DoNotPay were allegedly unusable as they included details that were inaccurate based on the information provided by Faridian. In one instance, the documents provided by DoNotPay were completely blank and were never delivered to the opposing party, Faridian alleges.

DoNotPay has not yet filed a formal answer.

MillerKing, LLC v. DoNotPay, Inc.

Illinois-based law firm MillerKing filed the second class action lawsuit on March 13th in the Southern District of Illinois. The lawsuit alleges that DoNotPay violated federal and state laws including the Lanham Act and Illinois’ deceptive trade practices law.

Similar to the California lawsuit, MillerKing’s allegations rely largely on the proposition that DoNotPay is advertising and providing legal services without a license to practice law, but the firm invokes federal law in addition to state-specific statutes.

Tewson v. DoNotPay, Inc.

In this dispute, Kathryn Tewson, a paralegal and investigator at a New York law firm, filed a petition seeking to compel DoNotPay to produce pre-action discovery under a New York law that allows a party to seek disclosures prior to the commencement of an action.

Tewson’s petition alleged that DoNotPay is defrauding consumers because the company doesn’t use AI-backed technology, despite claims to the contrary. Tewson also asserted that DoNotPay’s products produced documents containing a number of legal errors.

The court ultimately denied Tewson’s petition on March 22.

DoNotPay: Sign of What’s to Come?

Access to justice initiatives have seen quite a few setbacks over the last few years. The Justice Department’s Office for Access to Justice has had its ability to make lasting change questioned. The office reopened its doors 18 months ago after it was closed during the Trump administration, but if the program’s existence hinges on the political party in power, it may not be able to effectively carry out its mission.

Additionally, many state bar associations and legislative bodies have opted to preserve the status quo and not make changes to local UPL rules or their versions of the American Bar Association’s Rule 5.4, which prohibits fee-sharing with nonlawyers. The ABA has also discouraged states from loosening their versions of Rule 5.4.

The three legal actions against DoNotPay highlight some of the potential dangers cited by opponents of reregulating the practice of law, especially UPL rules. Providing inadequate legal assistance—as the claims against DoNotPay allege— often puts someone in a worse position than they would have been in without the assistance, thus impeding access to justice efforts.

Additionally, many legal professionals are concerned that allowing nonlawyers to own law firms could result in profits being prioritized over the needs of the client. While that isn’t necessarily the case with DoNotPay, nonlawyers aren’t constrained by the ethical obligations to which lawyers are held, which could result in less conscientious work being done on clients’ behalf. Taking on too many clients, overstating the services available, or dragging out processes for the sake of monetary gain are all ways relaxing legal practice rules could play out.

DoNotPay: Do Not Worry

Although these are valid concerns for relaxing law practice rules—and reasons for why it’s important to have some level of regulation of legal services—these recent lawsuits shouldn’t be a cause for concern among reform advocates.

Data from states that have already relaxed their UPL laws and their versions of Rule 5.4 are promising. Companies operating in these jurisdictions like LegalZoom, Rocket Lawyer, and Hello Divorce are perfect examples of how nonlawyer involvement can advance the industry and improve access to justice.

Furthermore, amazing legal industry developments including publicly available artificial intelligence, the rise of legal operations, and increased reliance on outside expertise all indicate that the profession is moving towards greater innovation and accessibility.

But nonlawyer involvement in the legal profession is a necessary piece of the puzzle. Access to justice and justice gap issues that currently plague the US have to be addressed. Over half of the states have less than one civil legal aid attorney per 10,000 people living below the 200% of the federal poverty line, and there are more than 1.9 million requests for legal assistance annually from low-income households.

The fear that some bad actors could take advantage of fewer practice restrictions should not impede the efforts of the many who are providing access to affordable legal services for the benefit of those who need it most.

Bloomberg Law subscribers can find related content on our Legal Operations, ABA/Bloomberg Law Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct, and In Focus: Lawyer Development resources.

If you’re reading this article on the Bloomberg Terminal, please run BLAW OUT <GO> to access the hyperlinked content or click here to view the web version of this article.