An AI lawyer,
available right now.

A general-purpose assistant has to be safe across every subject at once, so on legal topics it defaults to hedging - and OpenAI has been progressively narrowing what it will say about professional matters at all. The result is technically correct and practically useless: "you may want to consult a professional" is not an answer.

A specialist configured for one field can name the rule, the deadline and the number, and state its own limits rather than refusing outright.

No. General legal information still works - definitions, concepts, how a process generally runs. What changed is tailored advice: applying the rules to your specific circumstances, which is what the October 2025 policy restricts without a licensed professional involved.

Unfortunately that is the version most people need, which is why the refusals feel more total than the policy is.

Unauthorised practice of law is a real regulatory category in every US state, which is why no general platform will tailor advice at scale.

Copilotly does not either - it is not a law firm and says so on every page. What it does is explain, prepare and draft, then tell you which specific part needs an attorney rather than applying one blanket caution to the whole question.

Legal aid organisations handle civil matters at no cost and the income limits are higher than most people assume. Many bar associations run free referral lines, and law school clinics take cases under supervision.

For small civil disputes, small claims court is explicitly designed for people without lawyers - capped amounts, simplified procedure, and judges who expect it.

Sometimes, and it makes the answer worse rather than better. Convincing a model your situation is hypothetical produces an answer calibrated for a hypothetical, stripped of the caveats about jurisdiction and uncertainty that you actually needed.

On a question with a deadline attached, a confident wrong answer costs more than a refusal.

Yes. Using AI to understand your own legal situation is entirely lawful - you are always permitted to represent yourself and to inform yourself.

What is regulated is the unauthorised practice of law, which is about someone providing tailored legal advice to another person without a licence. Copilotly provides information and drafting assistance, states that boundary explicitly on every legal page, and does not hold itself out as a law firm.

You can file documents you have prepared yourself, including with AI assistance - self-represented litigants do this constantly. Courts care about content and procedure, not about which tool produced the draft.

What matters is that the document is accurate, uses the correct form for that court, and meets the filing rules. Those vary by jurisdiction and are worth verifying with the clerk's office, which will usually tell you.

No, and this is worth understanding before you share anything sensitive. Privilege attaches to communications with a licensed attorney for the purpose of legal advice. Conversations with Copilotly are private and encrypted, but they are not privileged.

In practical terms: they could in principle be discoverable in litigation. For anything already contentious, talk to a lawyer first.

Good on well-settled, frequently-litigated rules - deposit deadlines, small claims limits, notice periods. Less reliable on recent changes, unusual fact patterns, and anything where local court practice diverges from the statute.

Treat every specific figure as something to verify against the statute itself, which is why every legal page links to the primary source rather than asking you to take our word for it.

Criminal matters, at any stage. Anything already in active litigation. Custody and family court. Immigration status. Eviction proceedings once filed.

The common thread is that consequences are severe, procedure matters as much as substance, and the value of representation is high. In those situations use it only to understand what is happening and to prepare - never as the basis for a decision.

No, and any tool that does should worry you. Case strength depends on evidence, credibility, the specific court and facts nobody has seen.

What it will do is tell you what the rule is, whether the facts you describe are the kind the rule addresses, and what a lawyer would want to know - which is usually enough to decide whether the question is worth taking further.

Legal aid is free where you qualify, and if you do, use it - it is better than any AI for a matter that needs representation. The difficulty is that eligibility is means-tested and capacity is limited, so many people fall between qualifying for aid and affording counsel.

That gap is where this is genuinely useful.

No, and Copilotly will not claim it can. Copilotly's Legal Copilots provide general legal information and educational content. They do not constitute legal advice, create an attorney-client relationship, or substitute for consultation with a licensed attorney. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always consult a qualified lawyer licensed in your state or country before making legal decisions or taking legal action. If you are facing a legal emergency, contact a local attorney or legal aid organization immediately.

What it does do is give you information, drafts and preparation - so you either arrive at a professional consultation already informed, or you handle the many situations where you were never going to book one at all.

Not a law firm. This is legal information, not legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney for your specific situation.

We say this on every page rather than in a footer, because it is the actual protection - for you and for us. Companies in this category have been fined for implying otherwise.

A general-purpose assistant has to stay safe across every subject at once, so on legal questions it hedges. The Legal Copilot is configured for this field alone - its own system prompt, model and parameters - which is the difference between "you may want to check your local rules" and a named rule, a deadline and a draft you can send.

OpenAI has also been narrowing what ChatGPT will say about professional matters, which is precisely the gap these copilots exist to fill.

Contracts, tenant rights, immigration, family law and business formation - without the $350/hr.

There are 11 specialist copilots inside this domain, each tuned to a narrower job, so you are not asking one generalist to cover everything.

The free plan gives you three copilots of your choice, 50 messages a day and the browser extension, with no card required. Pro starts at $4.99/week and unlocks all 131 copilots across all 20 domains, with unlimited messages, document upload and the mobile apps. Annual works out at $24.17/month.

There is a 3-day free trial and a 7-day money-back guarantee.

Conversations are encrypted in transit and at rest. We do not use your data to train models and we do not share it with third parties. Given how much of what people bring to a lawyer is sensitive, that is a requirement rather than a feature.

It can. Treat any answer as a well-informed starting point rather than a verified conclusion, particularly where money, health or a deadline is involved. You can rate any response, which feeds back into how copilots are tuned.

For consequential decisions, use it to understand the situation and prepare your questions, then confirm with a qualified professional.

No. Pro includes every copilot in every domain, with no per-domain upsell - which is the whole point. Problems rarely stay in one lane: a legal question usually has a financial consequence, and that is one click away rather than another subscription.