Back on Nov 7, 2025, the first batch of “AI psychosis” lawsuits were filed in coordination with Meetali Jain’s organization Tech Justice Law Project. Ten days later, one of the members of Human Line Project reached out to Jain to find out why their case had not been included. Recently filed exhibits with the court show this email on November 17th, from Paul Hebert (current pro se plaintiff) to Meetali Jain.
“Back on 10/27 I had a video meeting with Allan, Etienne and Ben and they mentioned I was going to be included in the lawsuits. I noticed they were filed in a group not long after. I inquired and had a follow up video call with Allan last Monday where he basically asked me a ton of questions as he filled out an online form. He asked for all my transcripts which I told him I would not send to him, as I am not sure why I was being asked to provide my SSN and other personal information to someone not in legal anyways. I can provide my transcripts to counsel once under a privacy agreement.”
“If you are not interested in representing me, that is fine — please just let me know so I can proceed accordingly”
This email introduces some serious questions about whether Tech Justice Law has violated standards of the California State Bar.
- Why are Human Line Project employees in Canada conducting legal intake for the American law firm, Tech Justice Law Project?
- Why is Allan Brooks collecting irrelevant sensitive data like social security numbers?
- What software or program is Brooks using to collect the information? Is it based on AI?
- Why was Hebert told by Human Line Project employees that he was represented and his case would be included in the group? Who authorized them to conduct multiple calls with him about his legal matter?
- Were Human Line Project employees authorized by Tech Justice to promise representation? If not, what has Jain done to correct that behavior?
- Additionally, the fact that a fellow plaintiff, Allan Brooks, is the one conducting legal intake presents another potential conflict of interest.
California Rule 5.3 requires lawyers to supervise nonlawyers employed, retained or associated with them, including independent contractors, and to ensure their conduct is compatible with the lawyer’s ethical duties. The lawyer may also be responsible if she ordered, ratified or knowingly failed to remedy improper conduct.
The Human Line Project employees are not lawyers in either Canada or the US, so what exactly is the nature of their involvement? Why is a Canadian “support group” conducting multiple calls about a legal situation between an American citizen, American lawyer and American company?
