Unregulated legal services pose challenges

On 30th September 2026, Jelena Lentzos, the Director of Strategy, Policy and Engagement at the Legal Services Board, opened the panel discussions at the International Conference of Legal Regulators in London. In her remarks, she highlighted the shifting landscape of legal advice, noting that as more assistance moves outside the traditional framework of regulated practice, essential questions arise about access to justice and the role of regulators in this evolving market.

Lentzos stated, "People are seeking help from regulated lawyers, but also from unregulated advisers, charities, online platforms and AI systems." This shift underscores the importance of regulation, as the current legal landscape consists of various options for seeking help, complicating the decision-making process for consumers.

Recent surveys highlight alarming statistics regarding unmet legal needs. "The Legal Services Board and the Law Society of England and Wales’ Individual Legal Needs Survey tells us that 32% of people with a legal need were left with that need unmet." This highlights a gap where individuals are often unaware of available support or unable to access professional assistance. Similarly, the forthcoming Small Business Legal Needs Survey reveals that businesses encounter varied legal challenges, with many remaining unresolved due to a lack of professional guidance.

The edge of regulation acquires significance in this context, as alternatives to traditional legal services provide speed, convenience and lower costs. However, these options sometimes leave consumers uncertain about quality, accountability, and potential recourse in the case of issues arising. Research indicates a notable "expectation/reality gap" in consumers’ experiences with AI-powered lawtech services, demanding closer scrutiny of their implications.

Lentzos also questioned the binary perspective of regulated versus unregulated entities. "I would question a simple assumption that regulated always means good and unregulated always means risky." She pointed out that regulated options can also be inaccessible, pressing regulators to consider where protections should be positioned—whether with the service provider, the specific legal activity or the potential risks faced by consumers.

The opportunities, however, are significant. Alternatives can enable individuals to recognise legal issues sooner, understand their options, and access specialist support, with AI potentially enhancing these services. "In our consumer research, 70% expected AI to make legal services easier to access."

Despite these advantages, Lentzos cautioned against potential risks associated with AI and unregulated services, such as the provision of inaccurate information, neglect of vulnerable individuals, and mishandling of sensitive data. The implications of consumers mistakenly believing they are receiving protected legal advice but are not present a critical concern.

Addressing consumer expectations reveals a pressing need for five essential protections: accuracy, informed consent, human oversight, access to redress, and personal data protection. However, current standards appear to lack robustness, leading to a disconnect between consumer anticipations and the protections that exist.

"Much of the material that does exist is non-binding guidance." This gap raises practical considerations for regulators on how to address risks that extend beyond their direct influence. To foster a smoother integration of innovative solutions, flexibility in regulatory approaches is crucial.

Significantly, the Legal Services Board is committed to facilitating technology in the legal sector while balancing benefits and risks. Through initiatives like the AI Growth Lab and collaboration with frontline regulators, they aim to create an environment conducive to innovation.

International cooperation is also essential, as many of these tools and services function globally. Sharing evidence and comparing regulatory strategies on platforms like the International Conference of Legal Regulators provides the opportunity to face common challenges cooperatively.

In conclusion, Lentzos emphasised that services on the periphery of regulation might help bridge unmet legal needs. However, such advancements necessitate clarity, accountability, and meaningful protections to ensure success entails widespread access to reliable assistance for those confronting legal issues