Artificial intelligence is forcing a question the legal profession has been avoiding for years.
At what point does legal help become the practice of law? And more importantly, who gets to decide?
A recent policy shift in Colorado is putting that issue front and centre. It may not be long before Ontario is facing the same pressure.
Colorado just changed the game
In September 2025, Colorado quietly introduced a “nonprosecution policy” that does something significant. It tells regulators to step back.
Instead of aggressively going after companies that build AI legal tools for unauthorized practice of law, the state will largely leave them alone. At least for now.
The policy runs for three years and is essentially a testing ground. The idea is simple.
If technology can help people who cannot afford lawyers, regulators should not be the ones standing in the way.
There are guardrails:
- Tools must clearly disclose they are not lawyers
- Developers must have some level of legal oversight
- Users must understand there is no solicitor-client relationship
But the direction is clear. Encourage innovation. Do not shut it down.
Why this matters for family law
This is not an abstract issue.
In family law, especially in Ontario, we already see:
- Self-represented litigants filling the courts
- Increasing delays and backlogs
- Clients struggling with cost and access
AI tools are already stepping into that gap.
They help with:
- Drafting court forms
- Understanding basic rights and obligations
- Navigating process and timelines
The reality is that many people are already using these tools.
The law is just catching up.
The real distinction: legal advice vs legal information
One of the key arguments coming out of the U.S. is this:
- Legal advice is restricted.
- Legal information is not.
That distinction matters.
A lawyer applies judgment to a specific situation.
A tool provides general guidance based on inputs.
The problem is that AI is starting to blur that line.
Very quickly.
The risk regulators are trying to manage
There are two competing concerns.
On one side:
- Protect the public from bad advice
- Preserve the integrity of the profession
- Maintain standards and accountability
On the other:
- Expand access to justice
- Reduce cost barriers
- Allow innovation to improve outcomes
Colorado has decided, at least temporarily, to lean toward access.
That is a notable shift.
What happens next in Canada
Ontario has not adopted anything like this yet.
But the pressure is building.
We are already seeing:
- Increased use of AI by self-represented parties
- Growing interest from legal tech companies
- Questions around where the Law Society draws the line
If the U.S. continues moving in this direction, it is only a matter of time before similar discussions happen here.
What this means for separating couples
If you are going through separation or divorce, this shift matters.
AI tools can be helpful for:
- Getting a basic understanding of the process
- Organizing information
- Preparing for meetings with a lawyer
But they are not a substitute for legal advice.
Family law decisions have long-term consequences:
- Parenting arrangements
- Support obligations
- Division of property
These are not areas where you want to rely solely on automated guidance.
The bottom line
The legal profession is at a turning point.
AI is not going away. Regulators can either try to contain it or find a way to work with it.
Colorado has taken the first real step toward opening that door.
Ontario will eventually have to decide whether to follow.
Need clarity on your situation?
If you are separating and unsure where to start, getting proper legal advice early can make a significant difference.
You can explore more resources and guidance at FamilyLLB.com, or speak with one of our family lawyers to understand your options before making decisions that are hard to undo.
