The question we get most often from attorneys evaluating the platform is some version of: "How do you make sure the intake questionnaire is not practicing law?" It is a good question, and the answer matters because the line between general information and legal advice is not always obvious — especially when the system is answering questions from people who are under financial stress and looking for guidance.
The core UPL distinction
ER 5.5 prohibits the unauthorized practice of law. The line that matters for software-assisted intake is the distinction between collecting information and providing legal advice. Collecting information — asking a client for their address, their income, their list of creditors — is not practicing law. Telling a client whether they qualify for Chapter 7, which exemptions apply to their specific assets, or whether a particular debt will be discharged is legal advice.
The bankruptcy.ai intake questionnaire is designed to collect information, not to provide analysis. It asks the questions a competent intake form asks. It does not interpret the answers. The attorney interprets the answers.
Where the risk actually lives
The UPL risk in technology-assisted intake does not come from the questionnaire itself. It comes from any system component that provides case-specific analysis — "based on your income, you qualify for Chapter 7" — without an attorney reviewing and confirming that conclusion. It also comes from marketing that implies the software can substitute for legal counsel.
We designed the platform to avoid both. The system gathers and organizes. The attorney reviews and advises. The product marketing is explicit that the firm owns the client relationship.
Firm responsibility
Using a technology platform for intake does not transfer the attorney's professional responsibility obligations to the software vendor. The firm is responsible for supervising non-lawyer functions under ER 5.3. The platform is a tool. The attorney is the professional.