By Anne Hickey, PBI Sheehan Scholar
As information technology continues to advance and evolve, new opportunities and new challenges arise for access to justice organizations. Technological advances have paved the way for online resources and tools that help individuals navigate legal issues efficiently and cost-effectively. At the same time, the legal profession is exploring new strategies to engage professionals who are not lawyers in access-to-justice solutions. However, where there is less attorney oversight, more automated assistance/programs, or both, access to justice organizations face more legal challenges alleging the unauthorized practice of law.
Update on Upsolve and UPL Restrictions in New York
Previously, The PBEye blog highlighted the Upsolve case, involving an access to justice technology organization that offers free assistance with various consumer legal issues. While the nonprofit Upsolve Inc.’s initial focus was an online tool to help low-income people file for bankruptcy, it expanded its focus to include a legal assistance program to train volunteer “Justice Advocates”, who are not lawyers, to provide free legal guidance to low-income New Yorkers filling out a state-provided, one-page answer form used in debt-collection proceedings.[1]
Proactively, Upsolve filed suit in January 2022 to request an injunction against the New York Attorney General from enforcing the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) rules against the Justice Advocates. In May of 2022, the Southern District of New York enjoined the AG from enforcing the state’s UPL statutes against Upsolve, allowing Upsolve to continue its debt-collection assistance program.[2] Then, in September of 2025, the Second Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision and held that the district court incorrectly applied strict scrutiny to the UPL rules’ regulation of speech. The Second Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded for the district court to consider the UPL rules under intermediate scrutiny.
After the Second Circuit’s reversal, Upsolve appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, in March of 2026, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case without explanation. Also in March 2026, the lower court reconsidered the suit on remand and dismissed the case. Upsolve has indicated that it will again appeal the district court’s decision, but currently, low-income individuals facing debt-collection lawsuits may no longer receive free guidance from Upsolve’s trained Justice Advocates.
A Contrasting Approach: An Advocate Program in South Carolina Survives a UPL Challenge
In early 2024, the South Carolina NAACP’s Housing Advocate Program, which trains community members to provide free legal information, was given the green light to continue by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Here, the plaintiff sought to implement a housing advocate program that would provide legal advice to tenants facing potential eviction from their residences.[3] The Program included an advocate training component with four modules, testing components, and lawyer supervision.[4] The NAACP brought a pre-enforcement challenge to the South Carolina statute prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. After the district court deferred to the state court to resolve the relevant state-law question, the NAACP brought its case in the state’s supreme court by invoking original jurisdiction.[5] South Carolina’s highest court concluded that the NAACP’s proposed Housing Advocate Program did not constitute a UPL violation, and thus the program was permitted to continue on a provisional basis for three years.[6] In explaining the basis for its ruling, the court emphasized that they found there to be sufficient lawyer involvement and supervision, safeguards in place in the form of periodic lawyer review of each Advocate’s work to ensure that Advocates provide only limited and competent guidance to tenants, and that the petitioners agreed to share data about the potential successes and failures of the Program.[7]
One clear distinction between the South Carolina Housing Advocate Program and the Upsolve program was the level of attorney supervision and other safeguards the programs implement to provide oversight. In Upsolve, the Second Circuit noted that the proposed Justice Advocates would provide individualized legal advice “without being licensed as, or supervised by, attorneys.”[8] In contrast, the Housing Advocate Program was structured to include attorney oversight designed to limit the risks associated with nonlawyer legal assistance.
Another distinction between the two programs was the different legal mechanisms through which the parties sought relief. In re S.C. NAACP Housing Advocate Program, the plaintiff brought a regulatory petition requesting authorization for their specific program from the South Carolina Supreme Court, whereas Upsolve involved a federal constitutional challenge asserting that New York’s UPL restrictions violated the First Amendment.[9] When the plaintiffs in South Carolina initially filed suit in federal court, they argued that the UPL statute had a reasonable, non-speculative chilling effect on their speech.[10] However, after refiling in state court at the federal judge’s suggestion, they did not raise a free speech claim.[11]
These distinctions (robust attorney oversight and other safeguards, coupled with seeking a judicial determination regarding the permissibility of the program) may offer a pathway for access to justice organizations to mitigate the risk of UPL challenges.
UPL Challenges to Legal Tech
Beyond these access to justice programs, The PBEye blog is following UPL litigation regarding tech companies providing legal assistance services, which could have implications for access to justice organizations. DoNotPay is an AI-powered legal services platform, launched in 2015 and marketed as “the world’s first robot lawyer,” that helps consumers generate documents and automate tasks such as disputing fees, requesting refunds, canceling subscriptions, and addressing certain legal or bureaucratic issues without hiring a lawyer. DoNotPay has faced multiple legal challenges in recent years. In MillerKing, LLC v. DoNotPay, Inc., an Illinois law firm alleged that the company engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, although the case was dismissed for lack of standing.[12] Separately, in 2024, while not a UPL claim, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) settled its lawsuit alleging that DoNotPay made deceptive claims about the capabilities of its AI legal services.
Another challenge to DoNotPay came in March 2023, when a customer filed a proposed class action alleging that the company engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of California law.[13] The plaintiff alleged that he purchased DoNotPay’s services with the expectation that the platform would provide competent legal assistance and legal documents, including demand letters, a small claims court filing, LLC operating agreements, and an EEOC discrimination complaint.[14] He further alleged that the documents and legal assistance generated by DoNotPay were deficient and, in some instances, unusable.[15] Although the case did not go to trial, DoNotPay settled the case for an undisclosed amount of monetary damages. The filing did not disclose the specific terms of the settlement agreement.
Most recently, Nippon Life Insurance Co. filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in March of 2026 alleging that OpenAI engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Specifically, the complaint alleges that ChatGPT (one of OpenAI’s products) encouraged one of Nippon’s insurance clients to continue pursuing claims despite a settlement and dismissal. According to the complaint, the insurance claimant settled her disability case in 2024, but ChatGPT purportedly encouraged her to challenge the settlement agreement.[16] Further, ChatGPT allegedly helped draft legal filings that contained defective or fabricated legal authority.[17] This case has not gone to trial yet, and OpenAI has filed a motion to dismiss the case in May, but PBI will continue to follow new developments in this case.
A Path Forward for Access to Justice
There are other access to justice innovations that face UPL considerations, such as community justice worker programs, which have successfully obtained explicit authorization in some jurisdictions for professionals who are not lawyers to provide legal advice in discrete circumstances. Another exception to engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by individuals who are not lawyers is agency authorization. In certain instances, agencies will formally authorize advocates who are not lawyers to provide administrative representation, most notably in areas of social security and immigration.
Over the past several years, we have seen many innovative practices that are designed to help address the overwhelming gap between available legal resources and the need for legal services. Because exceptions to rules governing the unauthorized practice of law remain relatively narrow, both access to justice organizations and legal technology companies are likely to continue facing litigation as they develop programs and mechanisms to deliver meaningful legal assistance for those in need. The PBEye blog will continue to monitor these developments and keep you informed.
[1] Upsolve, Inc. v. James, 604 F. Supp. 3d 97, 103 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).
[2] Upsolve, Inc. v. James, 604 F. Supp. 3d 97, 126–27 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).
[3] In re S.C. NAACP Hous. Advoc. Program, 442 S.C. 189 (S.C. 2024).
[4] Id.
[5] S.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. Wilson, No. 3:21-cv-03302-JD, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142372, at *27 (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2023).
[6] In re S.C. NAACP Hous. Advoc. Program, 442 S.C. 189 (S.C. 2024).
[7] In re S.C. NAACP Hous. Advoc. Program, 442 S.C. 189, 191 (S.C. 2024).
[8] Upsolve, Inc. v. James, 145 F.4th 133, 136 (2d Cir. 2025).
[9] Upsolve, Inc. v. James, 604 F. Supp. 3d 97 (S.D.N.Y. 2022); In re S.C. NAACP Hous. Advoc. Program, 442 S.C. 189 (2024).
[10] S.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. Wilson, No. 3:21-cv-03302-JD, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142372, at *15 (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2023).
[11] In re S.C. NAACP Hous. Advoc. Program, 442 S.C. 189 (S.C. 2024).
[12] MillerKing, LLC v. DoNotPay, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 3d 762 (S.D. Ill. 2023).
[13] Faridian v. DoNotPay, Inc., Complaint, No. CGC-23-604987 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco Cnty. Mar. 3, 2023).
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Nippon Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. OpenAI Found., Complaint, No. 1:26-cv-02448 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2026).
[17] Id.