By Richard S, Granat, J.D.
The United States Supreme Court’s March 2026 decision in Chiles v. Salazar has sparked discussion far beyond the counseling profession involved in that case. Although the Court did not decide a case involving legal document preparation or the unauthorized practice of law, its First Amendment analysis raises important questions about how courts may evaluate future restrictions on professional speech.
For companies like JusticeXpress Florida, those questions are particularly relevant.
The Difference Between Speech and the Practice of Law
Florida has long prohibited nonlawyers from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Those rules protect consumers by prohibiting nonlawyers from giving legal advice, representing clients, or exercising legal judgment on behalf of another person.
At the same time, not every communication about the law is necessarily the practice of law.
Chiles emphasized that when the government regulates speech because of what is being said, rather than regulating professional conduct, the First Amendment may require heightened constitutional scrutiny.
That distinction could become increasingly important as legal services become more technology-driven.
A Modern Document Automation Model
Many modern legal documents are no longer drafted from scratch.
Instead, attorneys create standardized document templates and document automation software assembles those templates based upon answers entered into an online questionnaire.
For example, estate-planning documents such as:
- Revocable Living Trusts
- Lady Bird Deeds
- Enhanced Life Estate Deeds
- Quitclaim Deeds
- Warranty Deeds
may all be generated through attorney-designed document automation systems.
In this model, the legal language has already been written by licensed Florida attorneys.
The software assembles the document according to predetermined rules.
What Does the Nonlawyer Actually Do?
JusticeXpress Florida’s optional Legal Document Review service is intentionally limited.
Our nonlawyer document reviewers do not:
- provide legal advice;
- recommend one legal document over another;
- interpret the law as applied to a customer’s circumstances;
- modify attorney-written legal provisions;
- create an attorney-client relationship.
Instead, the review is limited to clerical matters such as:
- identifying unanswered questionnaire items;
- checking for inconsistent spellings of names;
- identifying missing dates or signatures;
- confirming that required fields appear to be complete.
In addition, reviewers may refer customers to publicly available educational materials that explain legal terminology or describe how particular provisions generally operate. Those educational materials are the same type of information that publishers, government agencies, and educational websites make available to the general public.
Why Chiles May Matter
If a reviewer merely points a customer to published explanations already available online—or identifies clerical omissions without exercising legal judgment—a future court could be asked whether restrictions on those communications regulate protected speech rather than professional conduct.
Chiles does not answer that question.
But it suggests that courts should carefully distinguish between:
- regulating the actual practice of law; and
- regulating speech that explains legal information or publicly available legal concepts.
That distinction may become increasingly significant as technology expands access to legal self-help.
Consumer Protection Remains Essential
Nothing in Chiles eliminates Florida’s authority to regulate the unauthorized practice of law.
Consumers deserve protection from fraud, deception, and unqualified individuals offering legal advice.
The constitutional question raised by Chiles is narrower:
If a nonlawyer merely performs clerical quality review and refers consumers to truthful educational information that is already publicly available, does restricting that communication regulate protected speech rather than professional conduct?
Future courts will likely continue to explore that question.
JusticeXpress Commitment
JusticeXpress remains committed to operating within existing Florida and other state UPL rules.
Our Legal Document Review service is limited to clerical review. We do not provide legal advice, interpret legal rights, or recommend legal strategies. When legal advice is needed, customers should consult a licensed attorney.
As technology continues to transform legal services, we believe access to accurate legal information and responsible self-help tools can expand access to justice while respecting the important consumer protections embodied in unauthorized practice of law rules.
Disclaimer: This article discusses constitutional issues and recent court decisions for educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion regarding unauthorized practice of law rules. JusticeXpress Florida complies with existing Florida law, and its Legal Document Review service is limited to clerical review and administrative quality control.