In March, we examined whether the Legal Practitioners Remuneration Order 2023 would strengthen or strain Nigeria’s legal industry and concluded that it could be both — a potential game-changer or a troubling constraint — depending on implementation, adaptation, and innovation within the profession.
Now, another fundamental shift looms on the horizon — the commoditisation of legal services — a process powered almost entirely by artificial intelligence (AI) and digital transformation. This development raises significant ethical and regulatory questions, especially concerning the increasing involvement of non-lawyers in delivering legal services. The core issue is not whether commoditisation should occur, but how it should be effectively regulated to balance innovation and professional ethics.1.
The Reality of Commoditisation
Commoditisation, in this context, refers to the packaging of legal services as accessible products, often supported by artificial intelligence (AI). These technologies, including large language models (LLMs), are increasingly capable of performing tasks such as reviewing and redlining contracts and commercial agreements; drafting legal documents including pleadings and opinions; simulating legal reasoning using expansive databases.2 Although these tools improve efficiency and access, many are developed and deployed by non-lawyers operating outside traditional regulatory structures. Some technology firms providing “legal tech” service do not have lawyers in board and management roles, raising questions about compliance with legal ethics. Without oversight, such innovations risk violating professional standards and threatening client protection.
Legal and Ethical Challenges under the RPC 2023.
The Rules of Professional Conduct 2023 (RPC 2023) outlines clear ethical standards regarding the delivery of legal services, particularly in relation to non-lawyers:
(i) Rule 3 prohibits lawyers from aiding or abetting the unauthorized practice of law and from sharing legal fees with non-lawyers, except under specific conditions prescribed in Rule 53.3
(ii) Rule 4 prohibits intermediary agencies from intervening in the relationship between lawyer and client.
(iii) Rule 5 forbids lawyers from forming partnerships with non-lawyers for the purpose of practicing law and prohibits the operation of law firms as corporate entities.
(iv) Rule 19 mandates strict adherence to client confidentiality—standards that many unregulated tech platforms may fail to meet.
(v) Rule 74 classifies unauthorized legal practice as professional misconduct, warranting disciplinary action.
These provisions demonstrate that unauthorized legal services by non-lawyers carry serious risks, including breaches of confidentiality, inadequate legal advice, and conflict of interest (notably under Rule 17). Nonetheless, a blanket prohibition could stifle technological innovation that has the potential to enhance access to justice.
Why Collaboration Is Preferable to Prohibition4
Given the rapid global expansion of alternative legal service providers (ALSPs), as documented by Gartner, and the entry of major firms like KPMG into the legal services market with initiatives such as KPMG Law US on 27 February 2025, prohibiting non-lawyers from offering commoditised legal services appears increasingly impractical. These developments reflect a broader shift toward technology-enabled, cost-efficient legal solutions that challenge traditional delivery models. Rather than resisting this evolution, the legal profession in Nigeria must focus on regulatory integration—ensuring such innovations operate within an ethical framework. This approach aligns with Rule 1 RCP 2023 which charges lawyers with promoting justice—a mandate that includes leveraging legal technology to expand access to legal services.
Collaboration with non-lawyer providers offers tangible benefits:
(i) Market Integration: By regulating these services, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) can limit the impact of unregulated foreign platforms.
(ii) Client Protection: Oversight enables compliance with ethical obligations, such as confidentiality (Rule 19) and due diligence (Rules 61–69).
(iii) Innovation: Lawyers can take the lead in developing and supervising legal technology, consistent with the continuing professional development (CPD) goals set out in Rule 11.
Strategic Regulatory Approaches for the NBA
To manage commoditisation effectively, the NBA—empowered by its self-regulatory authority under Rule 73—can adopt the following strategies:
1. Legal Tech Licensing Framework
The NBA could establish a licensing regime, possibly through the Nigerian Bar Association Anti-Money Laundering Committee (NBAAMLC) or a dedicated Legal Tech Committee. This framework would:
(i) Require non-lawyer providers to register and operate under the supervision of licensed legal practitioners (Rules 3, 4);
(ii) Limit non-lawyers to non-contentious tasks, preserving complex legal advisory roles for qualified practitioners (Rule 16);
(iii) Enforce client confidentiality obligations (Rule 19) and compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) rules (Rules 57–60).
This approach enables controlled innovation while safeguarding ethical delivery.
2. Partnerships Between Law Firms and Tech Providers
Encouraging partnerships between law firms and tech developers, within the boundaries of Rule 5, would integrate innovation into regulated structures. This could involve:
(i) Registering NBA-approved law firms for such collaborations;
(ii) Mandating lawyer validation of legal outputs for accuracy (Rule 15);
(iii) Offering CPD credits to incentivise participation (Rule 11).
Such oversight ensures legal compliance while leveraging technological capacity.
3. Regulatory Sandbox for Legal Tech
The NBA could create a “sandbox” environment to pilot legal tech innovations under supervision, using risk-based models outlined in Rules 61–68. Features would include:
(i) Conditional testing with safeguards on data protection (Rule 19) and beneficial ownership disclosure (Rule 69);
(ii) Mandatory compliance reporting and risk assessments (Rule 66);
(iii) Transition plans for successful tools to achieve full licensing.
This would allow experimentation without compromising legal integrity.
4. Training and Certification for Non-Lawyer Providers
The NBA may also deliver training on RPC 2023 obligations to non-lawyers, certifying them as compliant under a supervised framework. Programs could cover:
(i) Legal ethics and confidentiality (Rule 19);
(ii) AML compliance (Rules 57–60);
(iii) General professional standards, qualifying as CPD under Rule 11.
Certified entities could be listed as “NBA-approved legal tech providers,” reducing misconduct risks through education.
5. Public Awareness and Enforcement
The NBA should initiate campaigns to educate clients on the dangers of using unregulated platforms. This would involve:
(i) Publishing lists distinguishing regulated and unregulated services (Rule 39);
(ii)Mandating certified providers to display NBA seals;
(iii) Investigating and disciplining unauthorized practice through the NBAAMLC (Rule 74(2)).
This approach promotes public trust and incentivises compliance by non-lawyer providers.
6. Legislative Advocacy
Finally, the NBA may advocate for amendments to the Legal Practitioners Act to provide statutory authority over legal tech. Drawing from Rule 76, these amendments could define “legal services” within the context of commoditisation; establish a legal tech regulatory agency under NBA oversight; align statutory requirements with AML/CFT obligations (Rules 57–71). This would establish a legal foundation for regulating technology-driven legal services.
Empowering Lawyers through Legal Technology
Lawyers themselves must be equipped to thrive in a digital legal environment. The RPC 2023 encourages legal professionals to engage in ongoing training (Rule 11), including modules on legal tech and AI which the NBA Section in Legal Practice is currently promoting. Law firms that embrace innovation will be better positioned to offer compliant services, reducing the influence of unregulated providers.
Future Considerations
As emerging technologies—such as neurotechnology( brain-computer interfaces) continue to evolve, the legal profession must anticipate and adapt to new challenges. The RPC 2023’s emphasis on ethical behaviour (Rule 1) and risk-based practice management (Rules 61–69) offers a dynamic foundation for responding to technological disruption.
Conclusion
The commoditisation of legal services by non-lawyers presents a dual challenge: fostering innovation while safeguarding ethical standards. Rather than enforcing outright prohibition, the RPC 2023 offers a comprehensive regulatory framework—anchored in Rules 3, 4, 5, 19, 57–73, and 74—to integrate non-lawyer providers into a regulated ecosystem.
By implementing strategies such as licensing, partnerships, sandboxes, training, and legislative reform, the NBA can uphold professional integrity while expanding access to justice. Ultimately, the future of legal services in Nigeria rests on lawyers leading this transformation, with the NBA serving as a steward of ethical innovation.
Written by Adeola Osifeko,LLB, LLM, ACIS, ABR, Principal Partner AEO Law Practice. Contact her on adeola@aeolawpractice.com.
Endnotes
- The Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023 (RPC 2023), issued under the authority of the Legal Practitioners Act (Cap L11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004), offers a structured framework to manage this challenge.
- Russ Alan Prince, ‘How Law Firms Can Overcome the Commoditization Crisis in Legal Services’ (Forbes, 28 November 2017) https://www.forbes.com/sites/russalanprince/2017/11/28/how-law-firms-can-overcome-the-commoditization-crisis-in-legal-services/ Accessed 3 July 2025.
- Under Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023, Rule 53, provides that a lawyer may share legal fees with non-lawyers in three specific cases: (a) agreements with a lawyer’s firm, partner, or association for payments to their estate post-death; (b) compensation for completing a deceased lawyer’s unfinished legal work; and (c) including non-lawyer employees in a firm’s profit-sharing retirement plan.
- Gartner, Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSPs) Market Reviews (Gartner, 2025) https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/alternative-legal-service-providers-alsps accessed 5 July 2025 : KPMG, ‘KPMG LLP Launches KPMG Law US’ (KPMG, 2 May 2024) https://kpmg.com/us/en/media/news/kpmg-llp-launches-kpmg-law-us.html accessed 5 July 2025.
Discover more from The Legal Trove
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Legal Trove 