The FTC in the US has hit DoNotPay with a range of sanctions, including a $193,000 fine, for offering legal AI services to consumers, even though it ‘could not deliver on these promises’. However, the FTC is perhaps missing the bigger problem here: protectionist Bar organisations that limit access to justice and the related lack of AI in the law.
The case against DoNotPay, the creation of Joshua Browder and which was initially focused on consumer rights issues, such as cancelling gym subscriptions, and handling minor gripes like overturning parking tickets, is a sad example of where we are today in terms of the ability of normal people to access legal solutions.
The FTC’s Operation AI Comply, saw the agency announce five law enforcement actions against different companies that ‘use AI hype or sell AI technology that can be used in deceptive and unfair ways’. (See here for more details about the FTC case.)
Now, this site is not going to get into the nitty-gritty of their spat, but suffice it to say it has never felt like Browder did things maliciously. Was he scornful of the complexities of legal work and the need for actual lawyers on legal matters, could be…. Did he seem to not really grasp the massive difference between overturning a parking ticket with an automated workflow and offering to help a member of the public handle a complex legal dispute only with software, it looks that way.
Browder is a smart person. He should have been able to read up on issues such as the Unauthorized Practice of Law rules in the US before making claims about what could be done with no lawyers present. And all of this could have been avoided with a little more care paid to what was offered on his platform. But, this mess is just a symptom of a larger problem.
The Bigger Problem
The bigger problem here is that access to justice… or in fact the ability to just get simple resolutions to even low-value legal or legal-adjacent needs, is so expensive when lawyers are needed that people really don’t know what to do. Isn’t that worthy of government intervention?
The FTC, once it’s done with chasing after Browder, could then do something incredible: they could confront the many Bar organisations (other than Utah and Arizona) across the USA and demand that they allow people other than lawyers to invest in and own legal businesses. The next thing they could do is to ENCOURAGE the use of AI in the legal field.
Now, allowing the rest of humanity to get involved in the ownership of legal providers is something that has been tried elsewhere, such as the UK. Here, changes were government-driven – under Tony Blair, no less, a lawyer himself – and led to the Clementi Review. Then legislation arrived and the Legal Services Act came into being. It allows ‘non-lawyers’ to own legal providers.
The result…..? Well, it hasn’t radically changed much at all…..yet.
The problem has been that a traditional law firm, or legal group, just with different ownership doesn’t change anything. If the ‘means of production’ are 100% the same as before, i.e. a time-based pyramid system, with minimal use of technology that could be used to improve the production of legal work, then it’s no surprise that nothing has really changed.
The Big Four have not eaten the UK law firms’ lunch. Access to justice – still dominated by High Street law firms operating as they did in the 1990s – has also not changed, even if some firms are part-owned by someone who is not a lawyer. Listing a firm on the FTSE also changes nothing if the way the firm works is the same as before.
And of course, many folks involved in the Legal Services Act don’t want to confront this reality, i.e. it has changed almost nothing on its own. In fact, some may argue that access to justice in the UK is worse now than before – as demand far outstrips supply of Legal Aid, for example, which is quite limited in terms of what it covers. Meanwhile, addressing everyday legal needs of most people remains expensive and slow.
AI + Liberalization
However, if you add AI, or other advanced tech, to a liberalized market, then you can get to somewhere that actually changes things.
Take Contend, for example, a genAI-based company that provides legal help to people who cannot afford a lawyer – or even those who can, but don’t want to spend a lot upfront.
The smart thing for society as a whole to do is to embrace AI tools and embed them into law firms so lawyers – who know what they are doing – can help the public. But many won’t. Why? Because they can’t see the benefits of changing.
But imagine this. A law firm takes external investment. It brings in tech like Contend, and other AI tools. It ensures its legal advice and help in general is ethical and correct, but with the tech and cash on hand it can scale this and offer services at prices people can actually afford. The owners of the legal business make as much as before, if not a lot more, because of the scale, and access to justice is expanded.
The future of access to justice may well be a business that embraces AI, external investment / ownership, and pools legal talent all in one organisation.
Now, DoNotPay’s problem has been that it got two of these bits (although one could argue their AI bit was not up to the job either), but ignored the need for lawyers.
But, that company’s errors may help to illuminate a better way ahead.
So, perhaps the FTC can do two things: 1) go and talk to the Bar organisations in the US and demand they allow external investment in law firms, and 2) encourage the use of AI in the delivery of legal services in order to help the citizens of that country live better lives and make real the FTC’s motto: ‘Protecting America’s Consumers’.
—
Richard Tromans, Founder, Artificial Lawyer, Sept 2024