---
title: "Deploy a US client-facing chatbot without it practising law unsupervised"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/client-facing-and-access-to-justice-ai-tools/review-a-client-facing-chatbot-or-intake-script-against-the-no-advice-li/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A43-T1-R1-US"
practice_area: "Client-facing & access-to-justice AI tools"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Deploy a US client-facing chatbot without it practising law unsupervised

> Draft proposed user-facing disclosures (not a lawyer, not legal advice, how data is used) from the firm’s policy.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/client-facing-and-access-to-justice-ai-tools/review-a-client-facing-chatbot-or-intake-script-against-the-no-advice-li/united-states  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Client-facing & access-to-justice AI tools](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/client-facing-and-access-to-justice-ai-tools.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | Draft proposed user-facing disclosures (not a lawyer, not legal advice, how data is used) from the firm’s policy. |
| What the lawyer must review | Check UPL, advertising and confidentiality risks (Opinion 512, Florida 24-1) Do not let an agentic tool give advice without review From 1 January 2027 (Colorado), do not present outputs as 'licensed professional services' |
| Written for | United States |
| Applies to | [Review a client-facing chatbot or intake script against the no-advice line](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/client-facing-and-access-to-justice-ai-tools/review-a-client-facing-chatbot-or-intake-script-against-the-no-advice-li.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: Draft proposed user-facing disclosures (not a lawyer, not legal advice, how data is used) from the firm’s policy.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 23 September 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Sources

- [ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (29 July 2024)](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1](https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-24-1/) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [State Bar of California, Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law (2026)](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Colorado Attorney General: Automated Decision-Making Technology and Chatbot Safety rulemaking](https://coag.gov/ai/) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [New York City Bar Formal Opinion 2024-5: Generative AI in the Practice of Law](https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2024-5-generative-ai-in-the-practice-of-law/) (checked 2026-09-23)

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*