“The requirement that only lawyers can practice law is there to ensure that legal services provided to people are high quality. Why? Because bad legal services have all kinds of very clear consumer protection implications,” said Stanford law professor David Engstrom. “But the problem with any licensure system is access. It can also become a mechanism for protectionism and a mechanism for propping up the earnings of that profession.”

Engstrom, on the other hand, said the legal system needs to come to terms with the fact that in many cases, pro se defendants find themselves up against institutional plaintiffs — like banks, corporate landlords or the government — and some people are simply priced out of the market for civil legal services.

“If their alternative is a tool that is less than perfect and yet might actually allow them to navigate their case in court, then I think that’s something that policymakers should be taking account of,” he said.

More common ground can be found on tailored uses of AI, particularly those that speed up, ease or double-check the work of legal professionals, rather than replacing them. Quite a few such uses are in development now.

Tripp pointed to an expungement clinic in Tennessee, in which pro bono attorneys used AI to fill out paperwork that used to take an hour in a matter of minutes, freeing up more time to discuss the process with their clients. Engstrom said his research team at Stanford is prototyping AI tools that will help Los Angeles Superior Courts, including an automated review of default judgment filings in consumer debt collection cases that will ensure they’re legally warranted. And Souza cited the NCSC’s work with a Pennsylvania court on a credit card debt diversion program. The jurisdiction requires that more than half the debt is established in the card statements, she said, and an AI tool will guide experts through voluminous documents to check for compliance.