To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge-org.demo.remotlog.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
W. Bradley Wendel (Cornell Law) provides a useful counterpoint to a set of chapters focused on mapping the connection between the current regime of legal services regulation and access to justice. His chapter is a passionate defense of the traditional lawyer’s role as a defender of key public values and a bulwark of rule of law. His chapter elegantly reminds readers that lawyers and the legal profession sit at an important crossroads as essential defenders of rule-of-law values that are under attack and yet waning in their market and cultural power.
Genevieve Lakier (University of Chicago Law) examines Upsolve v. James, where a district court enjoined the application of New York state’s unauthorized practice of law statutes to the Justice Advocates that the nonprofit organization, Upsolve, planned to train, to assist low-income New Yorkers file for bankruptcy. The opinion represents a clear victory for the access-to-justice movement. But it also represents a potentially significant change in how courts understand the First Amendment to apply in unauthorized-practice-of-law cases. Although the decision may be overturned on appeal, the logic of the opinion thus makes clear the promise that what critics have sometimes described as a “Lochnerized” First Amendment holds out to access-to-justice advocates, as well as some of its perils. In this chapter, Lakier explains why the decision is significant, embeds it within a broader story of doctrinal transformation, and spells out some of the benefits and costs of using a Lochner-like First Amendment to promote access to justice.
For decades, American lawyers have enjoyed a monopoly over legal services, built upon strict unauthorized practice of law rules and prohibitions on nonlawyer ownership of law firms. Now, though, this monopoly is under threat-challenged by the one-two punch of new AI-driven technologies and a staggering access-to-justice crisis, which sees most Americans priced out of the market for legal services. At this pivotal moment, this volume brings together leading legal scholars and practitioners to propose new conceptual frameworks for reform, drawing lessons from other professions, industries, and places, both within the United States and across the world. With critical insights and thoughtful assessments, Rethinking the Lawyers' Monopoly seeks to help shape and steer the coming revolution in the legal services marketplace. This title is also available as open access on Cambridge Core.
This chapter deals with the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the legal sector from a comparative law perspective, exploring their advantages and risks, the pertinent question as to whether the deployment of LLMs by non-lawyers can be classified as an unauthorized practice of law in the US and Germany, what lawyers, law firms and legal departments need to consider when using LLMs under professional rules of conduct - especially the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the Charter of Core Principles of the European Legal Profession of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, and, finally, how the recently published AI Act will affect the legal tech market – specifically, the use of LLMs. A concluding section summarizes the main findings and points out open questions.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.