Reining in the Rise of AI in Legal Education

Across the United States, law schools are implementing restrictions on artificial intelligence use in classrooms as educators grapple with how to integrate these powerful tools while preserving essential learning experiences. The University of Chicago Law School has taken a particularly firm stance, prohibiting phones, tablets, and laptops in core first-year courses—a move designed to encourage deeper engagement with traditional methods like the Socratic method.

“The whole point is to do things the hard way—because that’s how you learn,” explained William Hubbard, chair of the law school’s AI committee. “That’s tougher to do with AI.” Other institutions are taking similar steps as they seek a balance between embracing technological advancements and ensuring students develop fundamental legal reasoning skills.

The concerns extend beyond classroom engagement. Law schools worry that over-reliance on AI could hinder students’ ability to think critically, analyze complex issues, and articulate reasoned arguments—essential competencies for legal professionals. As Dean Adam Chilton of the University of Chicago Law School noted, “We take as a starting point that our students are going to use it, so how do we adapt our curriculum to reflect that, not wish it away?”

Meanwhile, The University of California, Berkeley, School of Law has implemented a policy explicitly forbidding generative AI for any work submitted for credit. Dean Erwin Chemerinsky emphasized the importance of students developing their own intellectual capabilities rather than outsourcing them to algorithms.

The legal profession is already experiencing significant transformation with AI, attracting billions in investment to legal technology startups—a trend that shows no signs of slowing down. But as institutions like these law schools demonstrate, there’s a growing recognition that thoughtful integration and clear boundaries are needed to ensure technology serves education rather than replacing it.