The recent lawsuit accusing OpenAI of the unlicensed practice of law has triggered a familiar reflex within the profession: fear that technology is encroaching on protected ground.

The complaint centers on a disability benefits claimant who had reached a settlement with her insurer and then, relying on ChatGPT, fired her attorney and generated new filings seeking to reopen the case. The insurer now argues that OpenAI “aided and abetted” her misuse of the judicial system. Whatever the merits of that claim, the reaction of many in the profession reveals something more consequential than the lawsuit itself.

For decades, lawyers have insisted that they support innovation; but in my view, this has meant so long as it does not disrupt the way they work or the structures that protect their market. Yet the legal system already fails the overwhelming majority of the public. The wealthy have lawyers. Corporations and governments have entire legal departments. But the vast unserved middle—often estimated at 80% to 90% of Americans—faces legal problems alone. Many believe they cannot afford an attorney, and that the system is too complex to navigate. That perception is itself a barrier to justice.

During my time helping to build an Arizona-approved alternative business structure at Rocket Lawyer, we were meticulous about the line between legal information and legal advice. When customers needed a lawyer, we connected them with one. But we also saw something the profession often overlooks: People were not choosing online tools instead of lawyers. They were choosing them because they believed they had no other option. Technology filled a void the profession had left open.

If our primary response to that reality is litigation, we are missing the point. Safeguards are essential. Consumers must be protected from misinformation, false confidence and tools that overstate their capabilities. AI systems must be transparent about what they can and cannot do. But guardrails are not the same as gatekeeping. The legal profession cannot simply declare that technology must stop at the courthouse door. Nor can we expect innovation to pause until every jurisdiction, committee and working group reaches consensus. Technology does not move at the speed of bar governance.

The question is not whether AI will be used in legal matters. It already is. The question is whether the profession will help shape its responsible use—or cling to a model that leaves most people unserved.

History offers a useful analogy. The Luddites of the early 19th century were not anti-technology; they were anti-disruption when disruption threatened their economic security. Their instinct was to smash the machines. The instinct today is to take users of legal technology to a bar committee or to sue them. But technological change does not stop because a profession dislikes it. It only stops benefiting the public when those best positioned to guide it refuse to engage effectively.

A forward-looking legal profession would acknowledge that AI is already part of the legal landscape, and that banning it is neither realistic nor beneficial. It would modernize the rules distinguishing legal information, legal assistance and legal advice in an AI-enabled world. It would expand regulatory sandboxes and alternative business structure models, allowing supervised innovation, rather than forcing it underground. It would invest in public-facing legal education, so consumers understand when they need a lawyer—and how to find one. And it would collaborate with technologists, rather than treat them as adversaries.

The OpenAI lawsuit may raise legitimate questions about responsibility and consumer protection. But it should not be misread as a referendum on whether technology belongs in the legal system. It does. It must. The alternative is a profession that serves the few while the many turn elsewhere.

We can either shape the future of legal services—or be remembered as the last guild that tried to hold back the tide. The Luddites lost. The public lost with them. We should not repeat their mistake.

Jack Rives is a senior consultant and strategic adviser focused on legal innovation, governance, and access to justice initiatives. He previously was the executive director of the American Bar Association and later served as president of Rocket Legal Professional Services Inc., an Arizona approved alternative business structure law firm.

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”