Will state bar associations keep up with the generative AI boom? What does this mean for public interest technology?

‍

Generative AI is all around us. From chatGPT to virtual customer service assistants, generative AI is here to stay. In the legal sphere, generative AI has been embraced by the research giants Westlaw and Lexis and AI tools for practicing lawyers such as EvenUp have popped up. As the need for legal services persists, AI could help expand legal services to direct individuals. However, for this to happen, in addition to community buy in and trust, state bar associations need to be ready.  

Prior State Bar Associations’ Response to Legal Technology- Avvo

Avvo connected individuals to legal providers through (1) a Yelp like system where you can search ‘top-rated’ lawyers in a chosen area, (2) a FAQ page with answers to commonly asked questions, and (3) a forum where people can ask short and discrete questions and receive answers from an attorney, and (4) a flat-fee legal services product offering.

While Avvo has been hailed as a benefit to the legal community because it increased competition between lawyers and used technology to connect those in need with legal services, state bar associations found the service to violate various rules of professional conduct. As noted by Barton and Rhode, the fact that bar association's opinions affect lawyers’ licenses in contrast to the non-licensed approach in other legal tech platforms such as LegalZoom, is unique to Avvo.

Eight states’ ethics advisory opinions found in total that under the ABA Model Rules (1) the marketing fee Avvo charged lawyers was not an improper fee splitting arrangement or referral with a non-lawyer, (2) Avvo’s legal fee collection process prevented the lawyer from properly safeguarding client funds, (3) Avvo’s flat-fee models interfered with the lawyer’s ability to determine the correct scope and price for the matter, and (4) the “satisfaction guarantee” precluded lawyers’ professional independence.  

State Bar Associations and Artificial Intelligence

While these Avvo ethics decisions came down after the service had already been launched in their states, state bars now have the opportunity to preempt the rise of AI in direct legal services and provide guidance to (1) better guide technologists when developing these products and (2) keep certainty and continuity with direct clients to help ensure the services are not discontinued.

With AI blazing trails in other fields, it is surprising that only seven state bar associations have taken any efforts to consider the use of generative AI in their states. Even more, out of those seven states, at the time of this post, only California, Florida, New York, and Illinois have promulgated actual guidance.  

This is a promising start, but with the broad potential for AI to expand access to legal services, this oversight and guidance needs to be coming from all 50 states, not just 7. Additionally, state bar associations, when creating this guidance should work in consultation with technologists to ensure the full scale of generative AI is captured.  

‍

References

‍

Back to Blog