Don’t Scapegoat Robots to Protect the Lawyer Monopoly on Services

You may have heard the recent travails of DoNotPay, the embattled Silicon Valley company that claimed to use artificial intelligence to help people win cases in traffic court. The company’s showboating CEO, Joshua Browder, boasted that he built “the world’s first robot lawyer,” and that his customers could win traffic cases simply by wearing the company’s special AI earpiece to court.

It all came toppling down when investigations revealed that Browder had overhyped his technology. Litigation has begun against Browder and DoNotPay, fueling comparisons to Elizabeth Holmes as an all-too-familiar cautionary tale of Silicon Valley hubris. Some critics have gone further, warning that Browder embodies the dangers of permitting technology into vitally important human institutions, such as law, at all.

This reckoning might be well-deserved. Time—and litigation—will tell. But the DoNotPay hubbub also tragically misses the point: The real scandal isn’t so much Browder, but the deeper problem he tried to address.

The US has a shocking access to justice crisis. Most Americans don’t receive any legal help at all for the problems they face—even for life-or-death issues such as medical debt, loss of home via eviction or foreclosure, and custody battles over children. This massive justice gap afflicts millions of Americans at virtually all income levels, spanning the indigent—particularly women and people of color—to the squarely middle-class.

To close this yawning gap, the US desperately needs innovative solutions that create new ways for individuals to vindicate their legal rights without a lawyer—and yes, that includes responsible use of AI.

Here’s the problem: At roughly $300 per hour, lawyers are pricey—far beyond what most Americans can afford. Sometimes, when a person needs a lawyer, taxpayers pick up the tab: Under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, indigent Americans are entitled to a free attorney if they are accused of certain crimes. But no such right attaches to civil legal matters, the legal areas that touch most Americans’ day-to-day lives. In 75% of the 20 million civil cases filed each year, at least one side lacks a lawyer. In some areas of law, such as debt collection cases and many family law matters, that figure swells to 90%.

Why are lawyers so expensive? Part of the reason is a tangle of laws that ban the unauthorized practice of law. In virtually every state, these rules make it illegal (sometimes a felony) for non-lawyers to supply basic legal help. Thanks to UPL laws, in most states, it’s a crime for a non-lawyer to help their neighbor answer even simple legal questions, select forms, or draft straightforward legal documents. UPL rules keep the price for lawyers high by choking off the supply of legal services—not unlike a town with only one plumber who can charge a lot for simple tasks.

But there’s an open secret about UPL: Just as some clogged sinks don’t require a bona fide plumber, many legal tasks are simple and don’t require a law degree. Often, these simple tasks can be performed by trained laypeople, or even software.

For proof, look at Utah. In a bold move, the Utah Supreme Court relaxed UPL and other restrictive rules to allow nonprofits, companies, and regular people to offer certain legal services. And the experiment is paying huge dividends. One new provider in Utah, the Timpanogos Legal Center, pairs women seeking a protective order with trained domestic violence advocates who represent them in court.

Another effort, run by the Sisters of the Holy Cross, trains laypeople to negotiate away medical debt for members of their community. Utah has seen software-based innovations, too. One company, Rasa, uses software to help Utah residents expunge their criminal record—a crucial step to getting a job and rejoining society.

Even more promising: There is no good evidence that new providers in Utah harm clients. Part and parcel of the Utah reforms is a process whereby regulators, supervised by the Utah Supreme Court, closely monitor non-lawyer entities to prevent consumers from being cheated, defrauded, or otherwise hurt.

None of this is rocket science. It’s the same kind of thinking that allows a pharmacy staffer to give you a flu shot. By enlarging the pool of providers, we can reduce costs and promote care. When it comes to our health, we don’t force society to choose between master credentialism and basic access. We let trained non-MDs do a lot, even if not everything.

And yet, when it comes to law, we stubbornly insist that only those with bona fide law degrees can provide rudimentary legal services, while the ranks of the unrepresented and unserved swell.

We don’t have to choose between cartel-like regulations and nothing at all. We can, instead, build a balanced system that ushers in new (non-lawyer) providers and regulates them in sensible and transparent ways to protect consumers and courts. Numerous states in addition to Utah—among them Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Colorado, and Texas—have begun moving in that direction.

So, while DoNotPay may well be overhyped and underpowered, don’t be misled about the real stakes here. Penalizing Browder and the next would-be innovator who follows won’t resolve the urgent systemic crisis in the justice system. The US can follow one of two paths. We can keep playing whack-a-mole to protect the lawyer monopoly. Or we can follow Utah with responsible reforms that embrace innovation, increase access, and protect consumers.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Stanford University law professors Nora Freeman Engstrom and David Freeman Engstrom are co-directors of the Deborah Rhode Center on the Legal Profession, with focus on reforming legal services regulation to increase innovation and access to justice.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines