A casual exchange with a chatbot can help someone understand a lease, think through a medical question, or navigate a personal issue. It can become specific and personal, even though people understand it isn’t a licensed professional.
Yet even basic, exploratory conversations risk being labeled professional advice under a New York bill introduced this session.
Senate Bill 7263 would prevent AI chatbots — defined broadly as any system that simulates “human-like conversation” and provides information or services — from generating responses that would amount to the unlicensed practice of a profession like law, medicine, or mental health, if that profession is normally provided by a human. The bill also authorizes lawsuits against chatbot companies that generate such responses, and makes clear that disclaimers alone are not enough to avoid liability.
It would be one thing if the bill was limited to unlicensed professional conduct. The state can restrict AI-powered robots from doing surgery or prescribing medicine. But some activities restricted by the bill affect only speech. And the legal context is especially murky.
New York Judiciary Law § 478 prohibits practicing law without a license, and courts have interpreted it to include providing legal advice or opinions tailored to a specific individual. When applied to human speakers, this existing law is already quite broad and raises serious free speech concerns.
Lawmakers want to force Californians to take anti-hate speech training
California lawmakers are considering two bills that would make “anti-hate speech training” a requirement. Assembly Bill 1803 would require employers with five or more employees to incorporate such training into existing, already-mandated sexual harassment prevention programs. Under Assembly Bill
Outside professional settings where someone holds themselves out as a lawyer, this law can reach ordinary, situation-specific guidance when it crosses into applying legal rules to someone’s circumstances. A casual conversation with a friend about negotiating rent gets into tenant rights and strategy. A suggestion on how to dispute a credit card charge turns into guidance on how to assert rights under the card’s terms and conditions. At that point, a friend’s advice can start to look like regulated legal advice once it offers tailored, actionable guidance about someone’s legal rights or obligations.
That risk isn’t hypothetical. New York has taken the position that a nonprofit program that trained non-lawyers to help low-income people fill out debt collection answer forms could violate unauthorized practice of law rules. In other words, even structured, form-based guidance tailored to a person’s situation in responding to a lawsuit can be unauthorized practice of law.
Given how unclear those lines already are, SB 7263 raises the risk that the bill would not only capture chatbots pretending to be lawyers, but also ordinary back-and-forth exchanges between a person and a chatbot. If someone asks whether crossing 34th Street outside a crosswalk on their daily commute is illegal, that personalized question could be treated as legal advice, creating pressure for chatbots not to answer.
Again, it would be one thing if a developer falsely claimed its chatbot was a licensed New York attorney, and it offered to write someone’s will. Laws targeting that kind of deception fit comfortably within existing fraud and consumer protection frameworks. But this bill goes further, reaching chatbots that make no such claims.
As a result, the approach taken in S. 7263 targets pure speech. AI systems generate responses to user questions, often in a conversational, tailored way. But treating those outputs as the unauthorized practice of law makes liability turn on whether the response is deemed “legal advice.” As a result, what is permitted or prohibited depends solely on what the AI system says, regardless of whether it reflects ordinary, back-and-forth exchanges of information. In doing so, the law blurs the line between protected expression and professional conduct.
If we’re purely talking about speech, whether it’s a person speaking or a developer’s chatbot providing a response, it should be free from government interference unless it falls into one of the narrow categories of unprotected speech like fraud. But states have long regulated professional conduct, and courts have upheld those rules. In Upsolve, Inc. v. James, a federal court recognized New York’s authority to enforce its unauthorized-practice-of-law statutes. However, FIRE is concerned about laws restricting the unauthorized practice of professions to the extent they reach pure speech. Such regulations raise serious constitutional concerns and warrant the highest level of judicial scrutiny, as they risk chilling valuable information sharing.
The one thing SJP and TPUSA can agree on
Two of the most visible student groups in the country — Students for Justice in Palestine and Turning Point USA — have next to nothing in common except: both are frequently targeted for their protected speech. Together, they account …
Another problem is that in order to avoid expensive liability costs, AI companies will predictably limit outputs, restrict features, or avoid certain topics altogether. Unless you can afford a lawyer for every law-related question you might have, the result is likely to be reduced access to information. For those representing themselves in court, that means fewer tools to understand the law, prepare filings, and navigate the process.
Even at this early stage, AI tools are already helping people navigate complex legal issues where traditional institutions fall short. New research released in March documents a sharp rise in people representing themselves in court alongside growing evidence of AI use. Notably, this increase was tracked in federal courts, which impose more demanding procedural and jurisdictional requirements than state courts, making the trend all the more striking. Separately, Stanford’s Justice AI Co-Pilots helps legal aid organizations navigate complex rules, draft filings, and manage high-volume cases, making a strong case that AI has a place in legal problem-solving.
As AI becomes a central tool for how people learn, ask questions, and engage with ideas, the legal frameworks that apply to it matter. But so does the distinction between professional conduct and free expression. And that balance will only become more important as these technologies continue to evolve.
 | A guest post by
|
Bleccch! Licensing laws are already destructive, and (unsurprisingly), this legislature wants to double down rather than back off. There was a case a while back in which a woman provided forms people needed for various interactions with the government, and she helped people understand how they should be filled out. No one ever complained that she offered bad advice or overcharged (she charged WAY less than a lawyer would). But the state stepped in and put her out of business for practicing law without a license. This is how your government "helps" you.
The N.Y. bill on AI can surely be challenged on the ground that it impermissibly infringes upon our constitutional right to express views and our related rights to request and consider information and keep informed.
Regardless, the bill is informed by an egregiously poor, short-sighted public policy: it seeks to prevent an extraordinary technological revolution merely to protect the current professions of special pleaders. Indeed, the bill constitutes an idiotic, Luddite attack on science and progress. It is dumbfounding.
Trying to save professions by outlawing modern technology never works. Such attempts only impede inevitable progress at great cost to society in too many ways to count.
If one day AI tools really can provide most products and services that humans use, there will be a surfeit of the products and services that we use. The problem of scarcity will have been finally resolved. With sound public policy, AI tools will create vast riches that can be used to ensure that no one anywhere must endure poverty or privation.
But I remain skeptical that AI tools will have any such effect in the near future. If past history is any guide, AI tools will at first allow us only to perform our accustomed tasks far more efficiently. Their transformative effects, if they occur, will likely emerge only by a gradual process. Those changes, if they occur, will surely put an end to entire lines of work and likely create others. That is how inventions usually work. That is how electricity worked. It took a long time.
But, again, if AI tools really are different and will soon end the need for human labor, then we humans will be relieved of scarcity and poverty.
Oblivious to these simple economic principles, the NY law aims to impede the inevitable progress of AI tools and thereby make everything even more expensive than it already is, even though these very tools might one day liberate humanity from the hardships imposed by scarcity.
What confounded idiocy.
Do you think China or other advanced economies will enact legislation that restricts the use of AI technology in any such manner?
This bill is also reason no. 10,765 why I will not again vote for Democrats, except during the upcoming midterms, when I will support them only for the sake of imposing checks and balances on the present Administration, which I revile on different grounds.
-- a former Democrat