{"manifest_kind":"upl_reviews","feature_globally_disabled":false,"reviewed_jurisdictions":[{"code":"GB-ENG","name":"United Kingdom (England & Wales)","tier":"1","reviewed_by":"Jeffrey Straka, JD","reviewed_at":"2026-06-06","analysis_ref":"docs/policies/upl-reviews/part-b-analysis.md#uk-england--wales","notes":"Legal Services Act 2007: general legal advice is unreserved; no UPL exposure for the descriptive conflict-flag activity. Watch FCA-perimeter + immigration carve-outs (not applicable to this product). Most permissive of all reviewed jurisdictions.","is_expired":false},{"code":"EU-DE","name":"European Union — Germany","tier":"1-with-care","reviewed_by":"Jeffrey Straka, JD","reviewed_at":"2026-06-06","analysis_ref":"docs/policies/upl-reviews/part-b-analysis.md#eu--germany","notes":"RDG § 2(1) reserved zone = individual-case examination ('Prüfung des Einzelfalls'). BGH I ZR 113/20 (smartlaw, 9 Sep 2021) holds Q&A-driven generators permissible because they don't perform individual-case examination — descriptive conflict-flag falls on the permitted side.","operational_constraints":"Marketing constraint: avoid 'better/cheaper than a lawyer' framing per smartlaw advertising holding. Inkasso registration is the structural route taken by other legal-tech firms if scope expands.","is_expired":false},{"code":"US-AZ","name":"United States — Arizona","tier":"1","reviewed_by":"Jeffrey Straka, JD","reviewed_at":"2026-06-06","analysis_ref":"docs/policies/upl-reviews/part-b-analysis.md#us--arizona-candidate-tier-1","notes":"Rule 5.4 repealed (2021): non-lawyers may own licensed Alternative Business Structures (ABS); durable, permanent rule change. Most durable US safe-harbor route. Authorization covers Arizona legal services only — does not immunize conduct in other states.","operational_constraints":"If we register an Arizona ABS entity (only required if scope expands beyond descriptive flags), each ABS must designate an Arizona-licensed compliance attorney. For purely descriptive flags, ABS may not be required at all.","is_expired":false},{"code":"US-UT","name":"United States — Utah","tier":"1-time-limited","reviewed_by":"Jeffrey Straka, JD","reviewed_at":"2026-06-06","expires_at":"2027-08-14","analysis_ref":"docs/policies/upl-reviews/part-b-analysis.md#us--utah-candidate-tier-1-time-limited","notes":"Regulatory sandbox expressly authorizes AI/software providers for limited-scope legal practice. Most explicit US 'software can provide limited legal services' route — directly on point for an AI tool.","operational_constraints":"Sandbox set to expire 2027-08-14; authorization orders not currently extending beyond that date. Eligibility has tightened (entrant count has fallen since 2022). Treat as near-term experiment, not long-horizon home base.","is_expired":false},{"code":"US-CA","name":"United States — California","tier":"2","reviewed_by":"Jeffrey Straka, JD","reviewed_at":"2026-06-06","analysis_ref":"docs/policies/upl-reviews/part-b-analysis.md#us--california","notes":"Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6125-6126. Fact-specific test; LegalZoom class actions settled 2012, no controlling adverse holding. Descriptive flag fits 'selling self-help materials' permitted side. Birbrower-style exposure for personalized application of California law to California subject — descriptive constraint avoids.","is_expired":false},{"code":"US-NY","name":"United States — New York","tier":"2","reviewed_by":"Jeffrey Straka, JD","reviewed_at":"2026-06-06","analysis_ref":"docs/policies/upl-reviews/part-b-analysis.md#us--new-york","notes":"Judiciary Law §§ 478, 484, 485. El Gemayel v. Seaman: occasional/generalized communication is not necessarily practice. Upsolve v. James (S.D.N.Y. 2022) is favorable signal (First Amendment, structured legal-information programs).","is_expired":false},{"code":"US-FL","name":"United States — Florida","tier":"2","reviewed_by":"Jeffrey Straka, JD","reviewed_at":"2026-06-06","analysis_ref":"docs/policies/upl-reviews/part-b-analysis.md#us--florida","notes":"Rules Regulating The Florida Bar ch. 10 (rule 10-2.1) + Brumbaugh ('fill-from-input' permitted, advice on courses of action UPL). Descriptive conflict-flag maps cleanly to the permitted side; the prompt's MUST NOT list mirrors the Brumbaugh test.","is_expired":false},{"code":"US-DE","name":"United States — Delaware","tier":"2","reviewed_by":"Jeffrey Straka, JD","reviewed_at":"2026-06-06","analysis_ref":"docs/policies/upl-reviews/part-b-analysis.md#us--delaware","notes":"Sup. Ct. Rules 62/86 + DSBA v. Alexander definition: 'all advice to clients, and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law.' Descriptive constraint avoids the 'advice' trigger.","operational_constraints":"Monitor 2024-2025 Rule 5.5 / 55.1 advisory-committee review for remote-practice rule changes.","is_expired":false},{"code":"AU","name":"Australia","tier":"2","reviewed_by":"Jeffrey Straka, JD","reviewed_at":"2026-06-06","analysis_ref":"docs/policies/upl-reviews/part-b-analysis.md#australia-candidate-tier-2","notes":"Incorporated legal practices (ILPs) / multidisciplinary partnerships permitted via registration (not licensing); non-lawyer directors allowed with ≥1 authorised legal principal. Entry is lighter touch than UK ABS model.","operational_constraints":"'Legal services' is broadly defined — can't dodge regime by labeling work 'non-legal.' State-by-state regulators administer (e.g., VLSB+C in Victoria). May need ILP registration if scope expands beyond descriptive flags.","is_expired":false},{"code":"CA-BC","name":"Canada — British Columbia","tier":"2","reviewed_by":"Jeffrey Straka, JD","reviewed_at":"2026-06-06","analysis_ref":"docs/policies/upl-reviews/part-b-analysis.md#canada--british-columbia--ontario-candidate-tier-2","notes":"Utah-style regulatory sandbox since 2020 admits non-lawyer-owned organizations to provide legal services on application.","operational_constraints":"BC is consolidating its legal-services regulator — monitor for regime changes. Sandbox terms apply if/when scope expands beyond descriptive flags.","is_expired":false},{"code":"CA-ON","name":"Canada — Ontario","tier":"2","reviewed_by":"Jeffrey Straka, JD","reviewed_at":"2026-06-06","analysis_ref":"docs/policies/upl-reviews/part-b-analysis.md#canada--british-columbia--ontario-candidate-tier-2","notes":"Utah-style regulatory sandbox since 2020 admits non-lawyer-owned organizations to provide legal services on application. Province-by-province authorization.","is_expired":false}]}