Welcome to the forefront of conversational AI as we explore the fascinating world of AI chatbots in our dedicated blog series. Discover the latest advancements, applications, and strategies that propel the evolution of chatbot technology. From enhancing customer interactions to streamlining business processes, these articles delve into the innovative ways artificial intelligence is shaping the landscape of automated conversational agents. Whether you’re a business owner, developer, or simply intrigued by the future of interactive technology, join us on this journey to unravel the transformative power and endless possibilities of AI chatbots.
A United States insurer has sued the developer of ChatGPT, alleging that the chatbot engaged in the unauthorised practice of law because it was used by a litigant in proceedings against it.
The claim is novel and extraterritorial but still of interest to us. It touches an issue already of direct relevance to many in practice: what happens when an unqualified opposing party treats a general-purpose chatbot as a substitute for a lawyer? Who is responsible for the wasted time and chaos that can ensue?
Nippon Life Insurance Company of America v OpenAI Foundation was filed in the United States District Court, Illinois in March 2026. According to the complaint, a former claimant settled a long-term disability dispute with the insurer in 2024 and signed a release. About a year later, she put her former lawyer’s correspondence recommending acceptance to ChatGPT and asked whether she was being ‘gaslighted’. The chatbot, the complaint alleges, answered in the affirmative, after which she used ChatGPT to prepare litigation seeking to reopen the matter. The Insurer attributes at least 44 filings to the tool.
Nippon Life advances three causes of action against OpenAI: tortious interference with the settlement contract, abuse of process arising from the volume of meritless filings, and the unauthorised practice of law. The third is the point gaining attention.
Notably, the claimant is not a defendant; the insurer has aimed its claim at the developer of the tool rather than the person who used it. OpenAI has said publicly that the complaint lacks merit.
The Queensland approach to regulating unauthoriszed practice has distinct similarities to many of the US states (including Illinois), so authority established there would have some relevance. Of the common-law jurisdictions outside Australia it is most similar in approach to regulating unlicensed practice of law. England and Wales reserve only a short, fixed list of activities to solicitors and leave general legal advice unreserved. New Zealand reserves a narrow set of litigation-related areas and protects professional titles, but likewise does not reserve advice. In those systems, a Nippon-style argument would have little to work with.
Queensland, like most US States, treats legal advice and document drafting as part of the reserved domain, which is the feature the Nippon claim depends on. The Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) prohibits “a person” from engaging in legal practice in this jurisdiction unless they are qualified and hold the appropriate practicing certificate.
The LPA offers no closed definition. ‘Engage in legal practice’ is defined only to include ‘practise law’, and whether particular conduct crosses the line is treated as a question of fact, assessed objectively. In Legal Services Commissioner v Walter the Supreme Court restrained an unqualified person who had advised litigants to commence proceedings and had drafted their pleadings and submissions.
Read against that authority the conduct alleged in Nippon Life is not entirely dissimilar. Our prohibition (in contrast to some other Australian States) applies to gratuitous assistance so the fact that a consumer chatbot is free is not, by itself, an answer. A “person” in Queensland legislation generally includes a corporation, so the section is not confined to natural persons.
The unresolved question is whether a prohibition framed around human practitioners can reach an automated system, or the company that builds it. In an increasingly automated world, there are many discussions yet to have about the driver vs car manufacturer vs software liability issue.
Self-represented opponents using AI can impose real cost and delay.
Queensland courts have responded to the issue to some extent by releasing guidance: The Use of Generative AI – Guidelines for Responsible Use by Non-Lawyers. If dealing with a self-represented party furnishing them with a copy of the guideline may be helpful.
Otherwise, the only real lever is specific direction managing the length of affidavits, management of discovery materials and use of AI in response to specific problems presented by an individual.
Supreme Court of Queensland Practice Direction 5 of 2025 – Accuracy of References in Submissions
Queensland Law Society Guidance Statement No 37 – Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Beyond Redress: Supporting Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse will be held at Parliament House in Canberra and online on 29 October.
The 2026 Central Queensland Law Association conference brought together the profession for two days of learning, friendship and the Golden Gavel.
A general retaining lien covers not only costs incurred on client instructions, but also by the solicitor as a litigant in quantifying or enforcing that entitlement to costs.
The practitioner induced a client to move to her new firm, and induced another person not to become a client of her employing firm but to engage her when she moved to a new firm.
QLS hosted a panel to share practical AI insights for sole and small practice lawyers.
The lawyer gave written and oral advice as “legal opinion”; drafted court documents and letters; filed documents; communicated with opposing solicitors; and attended court.
© Queensland Law Society 2026