|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Law, Technology and Humans |
Integrating Generative AI into Legal Education: From Casebooks to Code, Opportunities and Challenges
Aswathy Prakash G[1]
Saveetha School of Law, SIMATS, India
Vishnu Nair[2]
Amity University Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Abstract
Keywords: Generative AI in legal education; Legal Tech; AI ethics; technology integration; future law.
1. Introduction
Legal education has been a cornerstone of the legal profession for centuries, shaping the minds of aspiring lawyers and equipping them with the knowledge and skills necessary to navigate the complex world of law. Historically, legal education has relied heavily on the Socratic method[3], characterized by rigorous case law analysis and classroom discussions. This time-honoured approach has effectively developed critical thinking and legal reasoning skills among students.[4] Students are encouraged to engage deeply with legal texts through the Socratic method, fostering a robust understanding of legal principles and honing their analytical abilities.[5] Despite its historical effectiveness, the traditional approach to legal education reveals significant limitations in the context of modern legal practice. One of the most pressing challenges is the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application.[6] While the Socratic method excels in teaching students how to think like lawyers, it often falls short in preparing them for the hands-on realities of legal work.[7] The deliberation over whether legal education should focus primarily on vocational training or academic theory highlights broader questions about the role of lawyers in society[8] and the best way to prepare them for their careers. The vocational approach[9] ensures that graduates are ready for legal practice, while the academic approach fosters critical thinking and a broader understanding of law's societal impact, essential for legal reform and leadership.[10] Today, many law schools are adopting a hybrid model, combining both approaches to produce well-rounded graduates equipped for practical work and capable of contributing to legal scholarship and policy development.[11]
In contemporary times, artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the student experience in tertiary education, affecting how students learn, communicate, and work.[12] AI has had a profound impact on the legal profession, transforming various aspects of legal practice. AI-powered tools are now commonly used for tasks such as legal research, contract drafting, and case management.[13] These tools can automate repetitive tasks, allowing legal professionals to focus on more complex and strategic aspects of their work. For example, AI algorithms can quickly analyse vast amounts of legal data to identify relevant case law and precedents, significantly reducing the time required for legal research.[14] Given the transformative potential of AI, legal education needs to incorporate AI-related content into the curriculum.[15] By understanding the capabilities and limitations of AI tools, future lawyers can effectively leverage these technologies to enhance their practice.[16] This includes not only technical proficiency but also an awareness of the ethical and legal implications of using AI in legal settings.[17] Integrating AI into legal education can prepare students to work alongside AI systems, enabling them to provide more efficient and effective legal services.[18] Moreover, a comprehensive understanding of AI can help future lawyers better advise their clients on issues related to technology and data privacy, areas that are becoming increasingly important in the legal landscape.[19]
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is a vital branch of AI known for creating new content in response to user prompts and has significantly impacted various industries, including education. GenAI has accelerated technological evolution to such a degree that its potential to transform current teaching and learning methods demands a thorough reassessment.[20] Due to this pace, ascertaining the impact of GenAI in field education, both short-term and long term, poses a significant challenge. [21] However, irrespective of fully understanding its advantages and drawbacks, the educational system must swiftly adapt to the integration of these tools to ensure that students remain competitive and do not fall behind in a rapidly evolving landscape.[22] This article seeks to explore the current discussions on the impact of GenAI, particularly in legal education, as its use continues to expand within the legal profession. Understanding how GenAI affects the law curriculum is essential to prepare students for the profession’s evolving demands and to evaluate its potential benefits in areas like legal research, writing, and case analysis.
It is important to note that, despite regional differences, scholars have identified several key elements integral to the teaching and learning processes in contemporary law schools. [23] These elements include the transmission of substantive legal knowledge, the development of core analytical skills essential for legal practice, instruction in legal research methodologies, and the cultivation of practical lawyering skills. [24] Additionally, law schools emphasize the exploration of interdisciplinary knowledge areas relevant to the legal profession, the nurturing of a legal mindset, and a comprehensive understanding of the nature, functions, and processes of law and justice.[25] Collectively, these components are unified by a common objective: equipping students with the knowledge and skills necessary for a successful legal career. However, GenAI has added a new element to the educational framework: the skill of prompting, which involves providing instructions or keywords to guide AI software in generating a response.[26] As the legal profession increasingly integrates AI into various aspects of practice, law schools must focus on training students to effectively engage with AI-driven tools for legal research, case analysis, and document drafting.[27] This shift requires a deeper understanding of the ethical implications of AI in law and the skills needed to navigate the intersection of technology and legal practice. Therefore, examining GenAI's impact on the law curriculum is essential to prepare students for evolving professional demands and ensure law schools stay ahead of technological advancements in legal practice.
GenAI, such as ChatGPT, has rapidly gained popularity and generated significant interest for its potential to enhance educational experiences.[28] In the realm of legal education, the integration of AI, particularly GenAI, offers profound benefits but also poses significant challenges.[29] Today, the rise of GenAI tools in the legal profession has sparked concerns about the potential obsolescence of traditional litigation roles and the relevance of law schools.[30] However, such fears may be exaggerated, as essential human qualities, such as innovative thinking, holistic reasoning, integrating information across systems, and the ability to design, monitor, and contextualize AI outputs, remain irreplaceable.[31] These uniquely human traits are critical for overseeing AI technologies and ensuring that automated recommendations are applied effectively, suggesting that while AI can assist, it cannot fully supplant the human elements essential for success in the legal profession and beyond.[32]
This research paper takes a broad, international view of integrating GenAI into legal education, addressing global trends, challenges, and strategies. It highlights examples from the United States, such as Yale, Georgetown, and Harvard Law Schools, as well as practices in India and European universities that are either embracing or regulating AI. As GenAI integration is still emerging, the article examines the shift from traditional teaching methods to AI-driven innovations in legal education. It proposes policies for curriculum design, explores pedagogical approaches leveraging AI, and addresses the ethical challenges associated with AI use. The article also evaluates the future impact of AI on legal education and outlines potential directions for adapting to a technology-driven legal landscape.
2. Leveraging GenAI in Legal Education
GenAI has already broadened its scope in the legal field, and its continued use is expected to profoundly transform the profession.[33] It encompasses a wide range of AI models and techniques that can generate original content across different mediums, including text, images, audio, and computer code.[34] The legal industry is among the top sectors likely to be significantly impacted by GenAI.[35] Legal education must integrate AI literacy to equip future professionals with essential skills. Although the full extent of AI’s impact on the legal field remains uncertain, its rapid growth and widespread use by both students and professionals highlight the urgent need to adopt new teaching and learning methods.[36]Recent studies show that many scholars believe AI will significantly impact the legal profession, with numerous legal tasks likely to be automated in the future.[37]
At its core, GenAI leverages complex algorithms to understand and replicate patterns found in existing data, thereby creating novel outputs that mimic human creativity and reasoning.[38] This technology includes several key types: Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithms, Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), and Variational Autoencoders (VAEs).[39] NLP algorithms are adept at generating human-like text, enabling applications such as automated writing assistants and conversational agents.[40] Models like GPT-4 can produce coherent, contextually relevant text based on input prompts, making them invaluable for drafting legal documents and summarizing legal texts.[41] The applications of GenAI in the legal field are extensive. For instance, NLP algorithms can automate the drafting of legal documents, summarize legal texts, and even generate novel legal arguments and case law analyses.[42]
Interestingly, the judiciary has started adopting the application of AI in its domain[43] as seen in recent practices in Colombia, wherein a judge had utilized ChatGPT to generate portions of a judicial opinion.[44] Similarly, some jurisdictions have allowed the application of AI in specific areas of laws such as property disputes and motor vehicle claim below a certain claim amount as well as small dispute claims.[45] The Supreme Court of India has begun integrating AI technology, including an AI-powered legal assistant[46], to enhance judicial efficiency, provide accessible legal information, and support translation and transcription efforts within the judicial system.[47] There is also speculation that predictive analytics could be used to pass judgments based on precedents.[48] In light of this growing reliance on AI technology in the legal domain, the potential to include professionals from varied fields to work and deliver legal work through a multidisciplinary approach has increased tremendously.[49] As legal education adapts to the integration of these AI technologies, educators and students must develop a comprehensive understanding of their underlying principles, capabilities, and limitations.[50] This knowledge will be essential in leveraging the power of GenAI to enhance and revolutionize the delivery of legal education and services.[51]
Educational institutions have taken varied approaches to the use of GenAI in higher education. While some universities in Europe and the US have banned its use[52], others have embraced it, making it a key part of their teaching methods.[53] Those advocating for a ban on AI tools raise concerns about the potential negative impact on students' learning, suggesting that over-dependence on these technologies might impair skill development in addition to the lack of accuracy and safety of AI generation outputs.[54] Conversely, advocates for the integration of GenAI into education emphasize its instructional potential, noting how it can aid in explaining complex concepts and help students enhance their writing abilities.[55] However, determining whether to incorporate GenAI into law curricula should not be based solely on weighing its advantages and disadvantages but rather on accepting the reality that the legal profession has begun to adopt the same.[56] The integration of GenAI is not just a minor ICT change; it could be one of the most significant technological revolutions in history. Therefore, it is essential for academic institutions to fully understand and embrace its transformative potential in reshaping teaching methods, learning models, and academic research.
As previously discussed, balancing practical legal training and academic study has been a longstanding debate in law schools.[57] Recently, many institutions have embraced a greater focus on practical skills, a shift widely supported.[58] Integrating GenAI into legal education enhances learning by simulating real-world tasks, such as drafting legal documents and case briefs.[59] AI tools also improve understanding of key legal concepts through efficient research summaries and analyses.[60] Moreover, GenAI powers virtual simulations, like courtroom scenarios and client interactions, providing immersive, hands-on experiences.[61] By generating innovative legal arguments and facilitating critical thinking, GenAI creates dynamic and personalized learning environments, better preparing students for the complexities of modern legal practice.[62] GenAI has begun revolutionizing legal practice by enhancing efficiency and accuracy through AI-driven tools.[63] For instance, Platforms like LawGeex automate contract review and compliance checks,[64] while Mishcon de Reya[65] and Allen & Overy[66] have integrated AI models for tasks such as contract analysis, research, and drafting.[67] ROSS Intelligence[68] summarizes case law and statutes, streamlining research, and predictive analytics forecast litigation outcomes by analysing historical data.[69] AI tools like Grammarly assist in refining legal documents for clarity and adherence to writing standards.[70] These innovations automate routine legal tasks, allowing professionals to focus on more strategic work and transforming the legal field through advanced technology.[71] Further, AI-driven tools create interactive, personalized learning environments, making education more engaging and effective. Simulations and drafting tools provide practical experience, better-preparing students for real-world legal practice.[72]
3. Ethical Considerations for AI Integration in Legal Education
The vast potential of GenAI in the legal profession, alongside its growing application in education, has introduced significant ethical concerns, that must be carefully managed.[73] Over-reliance on AI tools risks undermining critical thinking and fostering academic dishonesty, as students may depend on them for assignments and exams.[74] Additionally, AI-generated content often contains inaccuracies, particularly in sensitive fields like law, healthcare, and finance.[75] These errors, termed ‘hallucinations’,[76] occur because AI models generate outputs based on probabilistic guesses rather than verified facts, compromising the integrity of legal research.[77] The reliability of GenAI is further complicated by the opaque nature of its algorithms, as the quality of the output depends heavily on training data and system design,[78] making transparency and oversight crucial for responsible use.[79]
This raises a crucial need for students to develop skills that enable them to actively verify and correct such errors.[80] Ethical AI use requires users to apply critical thinking, fact-checking, and analytical skills. As GenAI becomes more common, law schools should not only integrate it into curricula but also emphasize AI literacy to ensure informed and ethical use.[81] Given the evolving understanding of its benefits and drawbacks, the appropriate extent of AI's role in student assessments remains a contentious issue. Misuse concerns have already led to bans in several regions, such as Canadian schools, some Australian states, and the New York State Education Department.[82] Moreover, GenAI models can perpetuate and amplify biases present in their training data, leading to unfair[83] and discriminatory outcomes.[84] Algorithmic biases raise ethical concerns, as highlighted by a grading controversy in the UK, where an algorithm disproportionately disadvantaged students from state-funded schools compared to those from independent institutions.[85] Gendered pronoun defaults also reinforce traditional gender roles, associating certain professions with specific genders.[86] To address these issues, educators, policymakers, and AI developers must ensure AI models are trained on diverse and representative datasets, regularly auditing AI outputs to identify and mitigate biases.[87] Concerns about transparency and accountability further complicate AI's integration. The inscrutability of AI decision-making processes makes it difficult to understand or attribute responsibility when errors occur.[88]
Plagiarism and IP violations are major concerns with AI, as distinguishing AI-generated content from student work becomes difficult. GenAI tools facilitate plagiarism by producing unique outputs that evade traditional detection systems like Turnitin, which rely on matching submissions to existing content.[89] AI detection efforts remain unreliable, often yielding false positives or negatives, as seen in a recent case at a private Indian university where a student, was accused of using AI-generated content for their end-term exams, and sued the university after failing them due to alleged software inaccuracies.[90] The lack of a foolproof detection method, such as a reliable watermark, complicates matters further[91], requiring educators to rely on professional judgment rather than software alone to identify misconduct.[92] Alternative approaches, such as analysing students’ writing styles or conducting follow-up discussions, are more dependable but time-consuming. Additionally, non-native English speakers may unintentionally breach academic integrity by using AI tools to improve language skills.[93] The widespread use of AI among law students persists, as many universities lack effective detection measures.[94] Law academics often recognize AI use through patterns in assignments and grading inconsistencies.[95] Their primary goal remains preserving academic integrity, ensuring graduates develop essential skills through active learning, which AI cannot fully replicate. The legal profession is already encountering issues like fake citations in court, highlighting the broader implications of unchecked AI use in legal contexts.[96]
The ethical integration of GenAI in legal education extends beyond plagiarism to issues of fairness, transparency, and academic integrity. While AI offers personalized learning benefits, it also poses ethical risks that require clear guidelines. Educators must emphasize academic honesty and the ethical use of AI, fostering independent reasoning and judgment. Further, continuous evaluation of AI’s impact is essential to balance technological advancements with the preservation of ethical standards and the integrity of legal education.
4. Incorporating GenAI into the Curriculum
The rapid integration of GenAI is transforming sectors like education and law, with tools such as ChatGPT raising academic integrity concerns since 2023.[97] Although human lawyers remain irreplaceable, GenAI has become vital in modern legal practice[98], driving the need for AI literacy.[99] Lawyers don’t need to be AI experts[100] but must understand its applications[101], limitations, and ethical implications.[102] GenAI equips law students with tools to enhance research efficiency, improve drafting precision, and generate case summaries and insights.[103] It also makes complex legal concepts more accessible, particularly for non-native speakers.[104] It is essential to emphasize that AI will not replace lawyers but will transform the legal profession by enhancing efficiency, making AI literacy a crucial skill for future success. Incorporating AI education is inevitable as AI's role in the legal field grows. According to a 2020 report[105] by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, competent lawyers need general knowledge, legal expertise, and practical skills. While law schools cover the first two, practical skills are developed through experiential learning, such as internships, legal aid projects, which remain integral to the curriculum and should now include AI proficiency.[106]
Despite its benefits, integrating GenAI into the curriculum poses challenges for universities and legal academics. Some worry that GenAI tools could undermine traditional assessments, like essays and problem-based tasks, by allowing students to outsource their work, potentially impeding skill development.[107] While some legal academics have embraced GenAI, others have ignored it. Some have tested its capabilities and found that these tools can assist in various academic tasks, including course design, content creation, teaching, assessment, and providing feedback.[108] To successfully integrate GenAI into legal education, it is essential to address concerns while maximizing its benefits. Law schools should create strategies that incorporate AI tools in a way that enhances learning while maintaining academic integrity.[109] This involves establishing ethical guidelines for AI use, designing assignments that promote critical thinking and original analysis, and regularly updating the curriculum to keep pace with technological advancements.[110]
Law schools face challenges in promoting AI literacy, as practical application is key to adopting GenAI technology. Some argue that integrating GenAI into curricula seems unnecessary[111], and several institutions have issued guidelines[112] to regulate or require disclosure of its use in assessments.[113] However, given GenAI’s growing impact on the legal profession, students must develop its proficiency to remain competitive. Excluding AI literacy could hinder students’ ability to meet evolving demands. A recent study shows that about 80% of U.S. students use GenAI for assignments, yet unregulated use may reduce engagement and the depth of knowledge acquisition.[114] Thus, legal education must adopt assessment methods to promote creativity and active participation, preventing passive reliance on AI.[115] Therefore, carefully integrating GenAI, with clear guidelines and balanced approaches, can significantly enhance learning and prepare students for a tech-driven legal landscape.
4.1 Curriculum Design Policies for Integrating AI
A holistic approach is essential to integrating GenAI into the legal curriculum, requiring a comprehensive strategy that embeds AI across courses to meet educational goals. Ethical AI use can be taught through modules on AI ethics, data privacy, and professional responsibility,[116] helping students understand relevant dilemmas. Hands-on learning with AI tools, such as NLP algorithms and predictive analytics, can be achieved through simulations, role-play, and real-world projects, enhancing practical skills.[117] Interdisciplinary collaboration with fields like computer science, through joint projects and hackathons, enables deeper learning.[118] AI-driven platforms offer personalized learning experiences, while ongoing faculty development, through workshops and collaborative research, ensures effective AI integration.[119] Faculty experimentation and sharing of best practices[120] further support continuous improvement in teaching methods, preparing students for an AI-enhanced legal landscape.[121] Assessment methods should be redesigned to measure students’ effective and ethical use of AI tools.[122] Performance-based, project-based, and formative assessments with clear rubrics can evaluate both technical and critical thinking skills.[123] Adequate resources, such as AI software, computing facilities, and technical support, are essential for AI integration, requiring funding and partnerships to access advanced tools.[124]
Despite the promising potential of GenAI in enhancing legal education, scepticism persists among some academics regarding its efficacy in teaching non-clinical subjects. Critics argue that reliance on AI tools may undermine critical pedagogical principles, potentially leading to passive learning experiences instead of the desired active engagement.[125] Despite challenges, GenAI has the potential to foster engagement[126] and transform passive learning into immersive, active learning experiences in legal education.[127] By generating complex legal scenarios, facilitating debates, and promoting ethical analysis, AI can help students develop higher-order cognitive skills essential for modern legal practice.[128] For example, GenAI can generate nuanced hypothetical cases with incomplete facts, nudging students to identify gaps and apply legal concepts like duty, breach, and causation in formulating arguments. This approach promotes personalized, self-directed learning experiences.[129] Further researchers recommend instruction in ‘critical AI literacy,’ to further enhance the critical thinking of students by teaching them to scrutinize the validity and quality of AI generated outputs.[130] Empirical evidence, though still emerging, highlights AI's potential to foster creativity, critical analysis, and problem-solving skills foundational to higher-order thinking.[131]. Such applications show how GenAI can serve as a powerful tool for preparing students to engage in an AI-influenced legal landscape.
It is also pertinent to address an emerging area of concern i.e. the significant human and environmental toll associated with GenAI development.[132] The energy-intensive nature of training large-scale AI models has a measurable impact on carbon emissions, exacerbating environmental degradation.[133] For example, studies have highlighted that training a single large language model can produce CO₂ emissions comparable to the lifetime emissions of several cars.[134] Moreover, the demand for sophisticated computational infrastructure increases resource depletion and contributes to the growing issue of electronic waste.[135] The reliance on outsourced labor[136] for tasks such as data annotation and content moderation often results in the exploitation of underpaid workers, who frequently endure precarious working conditions and high stress levels.[137] Addressing these issues is critical and calls for regulatory frameworks that mandate sustainable practices, transparent emissions reporting, and ethical labor standards to mitigate these challenges effectively.
Law school policymakers must establish adaptable, transparent policies for AI use that are regularly reviewed to keep pace with rapid advancements. These policies should clearly define acceptable AI uses[138], distinguishing supportive functions (like spell-checking) from actions that compromise academic integrity (such as generating full submissions).[139] Outright bans are impractical; instead, policies should be clear, and accessible, and foster open dialogue among students, faculty, and administration.[140] Balancing academic integrity with technological innovation is crucial, requiring a comprehensive, ethical approach to integrating AI into the curriculum that remains responsive to future developments.[141]
4.2 Strategies to Integrate AI into the Legal Curriculum: Proposed Modules or Courses
Legal education must evolve to prepare students for an AI-integrated future. While scholarly resources on AI in legal education are limited, its importance is increasingly recognized.[142] Law schools should integrate AI tools into their curricula to enhance students' competitiveness in the legal market. Some institutions have begun offering AI-focused courses[143], but these are still in the early stages. Schools must identify key skills for modern legal practice to integrate AI effectively, such as critical analysis, problem-solving, and client-focused representation, areas where AI cannot outperform humans.[144] Academic Board of Studies committees should monitor AI's impact and adjust curricula, ensuring courses focus on enduring skills rather than specific, quickly outdated technologies.[145]
Formal AI education is crucial for law schools, which should create courses on AI’s role and impact in the legal field, ideally co-taught by legal and tech experts.[146] Partnerships with AI providers and startups can provide hands-on training and tools.[147] AI can also be integrated into clinical subjects like Moot Court, Arbitration, and Negotiation. Programs like UC-Hastings’ Legal Startup Garage[148] exemplify practical skills development, while institutions like Flinders University integrate tech fundamentals into legal issues.[149] Chinese researchers propose virtual reality (VR) and AI-based moot court labs to simulate real cases, offering cost-effective and immersive legal training.[150] Such approaches aim to enhance students’ practical skills, confidence, and readiness for modern legal practice. Further, AI can greatly benefit students learning Legal English and Maxims by adapting to individual learning styles and providing targeted instruction. It can adapt to students’ learning styles, offering feedback on grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation thereby enhancing their English proficiency.[151] Tools like speech recognition refine oral communication[152], while AI-driven platforms improve legal writing by focusing on grammar, clarity, and structure.[153] AI tools offer law students an interactive platform to practice and refine their language skills, ensuring they produce well-structured, persuasive, and professional legal documents.[154] These tools are especially helpful in understanding complex legal terms and Latin maxims. Institutions like Yale incorporate AI in Legal Tech courses, preparing students for a tech-driven profession.[155] Hence, integrating AI into legal education fosters a more tech-savvy, future-ready legal workforce.
5. Pedagogical Approaches: Case Studies
Incorporating AI into education has shown promising results, as demonstrated by various institutions. In early 2016, the Georgia Institute of Technology utilized artificial intelligence to answer students' questions in the forums for its online Knowledge-Based Artificial Intelligence (KBAI) class.[156] This AI teaching assistant, named Jill Watson, was developed on IBM's Watson platform. Jill was specifically designed to manage the high volume of forum posts from students enrolled in this course, which is a requirement for Georgia Tech's online master of science in computer science program. The academic responsible for Jill Watson believes that AI can be leveraged to scale personalized learning, providing individualized assistance to a large number of students efficiently.[157]
The impact of AI on the legal profession has led to changes in legal education. For example, Yale Law School offers several courses through its Information Society Project, including ‘Artificial Intelligence, Robots, and the Law’ and ‘Law and Disruptive Technology.’[158] One standout course, ‘Artificial Intelligence, the Legal Profession, and Procedure’, focuses on AI's influence on litigation practices, examining how legal systems and processes will adapt to AI advancements.[159] Yale is also innovating by training AI models for legal use. Yale Professor Scott Shapiro’s students develop AI models for media law through the DocProject, and his courses, are supported by the Tsai Leadership Program, which facilitates AI labs to train ‘jurisprudentially responsible’ models using student-generated data.[160] Georgetown Law is leading efforts to incorporate AI into its curriculum, offering at least 17 courses on AI-related topics.[161] The rise of tools like ChatGPT, comparable to the 1990s World Wide Web launch, has boosted AI adoption in law. Georgetown Law, among other schools, lets professors set individual AI policies for exams and assignments, while maintaining existing plagiarism and exam rules.[162]
Law schools face the challenge of incorporating AI into research and assignments while maintaining academic integrity.[163] Some universities allow professors to set individual policies, with varying degrees of AI usage permitted to support foundational skill development.[164] Increased global demand for AI integration has led institutions like Northwestern Law to reconsider academic integrity policies, enabling professors to share best practices and providing resources such as Lexis+ AI for third-year law students.[165] Harvard Law School[166] and the University of Michigan Law School[167] are also pioneering AI education. Harvard’s curriculum focuses on how AI changes the legal profession and the skills required for future lawyers[168], while Michigan offers courses exploring AI's impact on legal areas such as autonomous weapons, vehicles, medical diagnostics, and criminal sentencing, emphasizing discussion on regulatory and legal frameworks rather than AI as a legal tool.[169] Internationally, universities are incorporating AI to enhance legal education. India’s National Law University, Delhi, introduces AI into the curriculum to create personalized learning pathways for students[170], and North Carolina Central University Law collaborates globally on AI and law courses, connecting faculty from 104 law schools.[171] Thus, AI is gradually but steadily becoming integrated into the curricula of legal education worldwide.
6. Future Directions
AI integration in legal education is bringing transformative changes[172], with trends such as AI-driven personalized learning platforms providing tailored instruction and feedback to deepen students' grasp of legal concepts.[173] Virtual and augmented reality technologies are also gaining traction, creating immersive experiences like VR courtrooms and augmented reality case studies that bridge theory and practical application.[174] In an AI-influenced legal landscape, three skills will remain crucial for human lawyers: innovation, judgment, and accountability.[175] Human creativity, stemming from external stimuli like reading or observing, uniquely supports innovation[176], as opposed to AI, which generates data-driven outputs based on patterns and vast datasets[177] but lacks contextual adaptability.[178] Human lawyers hold a distinct advantage in judgment, drawing on experience to identify legal issues and balance client goals with ethical considerations.[179] Moreover, a lawyer's expertise goes beyond knowledge of legal doctrines, involving judgment, the ability to identify potential legal issues, and the consideration of various perspectives.[180] Legal problem-solving requires complex, interpretative decision-making that involves strategic thinking, persuasion, and nuanced reasoning, qualities that AI, limited to statistical models, cannot replicate.[181] Additionally, accountability is an indispensable component of the legal profession, a realm where AI falls short due to inherent limitations like opaque decision-making[182], bias in training data[183], and lack of emotional intelligence.[184] Unlike human attorneys who can explain and justify their reasoning, AI tools lack transparency, often producing outputs that require human scrutiny for accuracy and fairness.[185] Moreover, AI cannot handle the emotional and relational elements of legal counsel, such as empathy and understanding a client’s broader objectives and concerns.[186] These limitations emphasize the need for human oversight in maintaining the reliability of AI-generated content.[187] Lawyers must therefore evaluate AI’s strengths and weaknesses and uphold ethical standards in AI-driven practice.[188] As AI integrates further into legal work, human skills in innovation, judgment, and accountability will remain essential for navigating this evolving landscape.[189]
Future innovations in AI and legal education are likely to focus on more sophisticated predictive analytics[190] and machine learning models. These advancements can provide deeper insights into legal trends and case outcomes, aiding both students and practitioners in their legal analyses.[191] The development of AI tools that support multilingual legal education will also be crucial, enabling non-native speakers to access and engage with complex legal texts more effectively.[192] Collaborative AI projects between law schools and tech companies can lead to the development of advanced legal research tools and automated drafting assistants, streamlining legal workflows.[193] Over time, the integration of AI in legal education will significantly change the skills expected of future lawyers, with greater emphasis on tech proficiency and AI tools.[194] Hence, this shift will require continuous learning and adaptation, as legal professionals must keep up with technological advancements to stay competitive. Further, recognizing the issue of AI hallucinations in bespoke legal research tools[195], future research should focus on enhancing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) techniques.[196] RAG combines large language models with domain-specific data retrieval, grounding AI outputs in authoritative sources.[197] While RAG has shown promise in reducing hallucinations, it is not foolproof.[198] Studies indicate that AI tools for legal research have not completely eliminated hallucinations[199]; therefore, users must continue to verify that key propositions are accurately supported by citations.
7. Policy Blueprint for AI-Driven Legal Education
In light of the foregoing discussions, the authors propose the following policy recommendations to effectively integrate GenAI into legal education while upholding academic integrity and fostering essential legal skills:
I. Law schools should implement mandatory AI ethics courses covering data privacy, algorithmic transparency, accountability, and bias mitigation.[200]
II. Integrating AI literacy into legal education is essential to teach students the principles of AI and its applications in legal research, drafting, and analysis. This includes practical hands-on learning experiences and interdisciplinary collaboration to prepare students for a technology-driven legal landscape.[201]
III. Training faculty in AI is vital for its effective integration into legal education. Institutions should offer professional development programs to enhance faculty proficiency in AI technologies, enabling them to incorporate AI seamlessly into their teaching. Encouraging faculty to experiment with AI in their classrooms and promoting the sharing of best practices among peers can further support this integration.[202]
IV. Law schools should update assessments to evaluate students' ethical and effective use of AI, emphasizing performance-based tasks, project-based learning, and formative assessments. Further, clear rubrics should be developed to balance technical proficiency with critical thinking and legal reasoning.[203]
V. Institutions should develop adaptable, transparent AI policies that clearly distinguish permissible from impermissible uses of GenAI, providing clear guidelines supported by practical examples.[204] They must be easily accessible, remain relevant and are regularly updated to stay effective.[205]
VI. Law schools should invest in AI infrastructure and resources, including software, computing facilities, and technical support, to provide students with equal opportunities to develop AI competencies. Collaborations with tech companies can offer access to advanced AI tools and real-world exposure.[206]
VII. To uphold academic integrity in an AI-integrated curriculum, institutions should adopt alternative approaches to plagiarism detection, recognizing the limitations of current tools. Emphasizing faculty discretion and implementing strategies like personalized assessments and discussions about students’ work processes will help maintain the integrity of student contributions.[207]
VIII. Promoting transparent communication among students, faculty, and administration is essential to clarify AI policies and encourage a culture of continuous improvement. Establishing accountability mechanisms for ethical AI use will ensure that AI enhances learning while preserving the fundamental values of legal education.[208]
8. Conclusion
The integration of AI in legal education has the power to reshape traditional teaching methods and enhance practical skills essential for modern legal practice. As AI tools revolutionize research, drafting, and personalized learning, they offer unprecedented opportunities but also raise critical ethical, environmental, and social concerns. Equipping law students with AI literacy, ethical grounding, and practical experience is no longer optional but necessary to ensure they can navigate and lead in an increasingly digital profession. This paper advocates for law schools to adapt curricula to include AI-focused modules, interdisciplinary collaboration, and experiential learning opportunities, which collectively foster critical thinking and responsible AI use among future legal professionals. The continuous evolution of AI technologies necessitates ongoing research to address emerging challenges and maximize the potential benefits. Future research should explore the long-term impacts of AI on legal practice, the development of more sophisticated AI-driven educational tools, and strategies to ensure equitable access to these technologies. Embracing this transformative potential will modernize legal education and prepare tomorrow’s lawyers to uphold justice in a world where technology and law are ever more interconnected.
Bibliography
Aggarwal, Charu. Artificial Intelligence: A Textbook. Springer eBooks, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72357-6.
Ajevski, Marjan, Kim Barker, Andrew Gilbert, Liz Hardie and Francine Ryan. “ChatGPT and the Future of Legal Education and Practice.” The Law Teacher 57 no 3 (2023): 352–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2023.2207426.
Alarie, Benjamin and Arthur Cockfield. “Will Machines Replace Us? Machine-Authored Texts and the Future of Scholarship.” Law Technology and Humans 3, no 2 (2021): 5–11. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.2089.
Alier, Marc, Francisco García-Peñalvo and Jorge D. Camba. “Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education: From Deceptive to Disruptive.” International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence 8, no 1 (2024): 5–14. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2024.02.011.
Alimardani, Armin. “Conversational AI: A Case Study on AI-Assisted Learning in a Criminal Law Subject.” Australasian Law Academics Association Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 2024.
American Bar Association. “Model Rules of Professional Conduct.” https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/.
Armour, John, Richard Parnham and Mari Sako. “Augmented Lawyering.” European Corporate Governance Institute - Law Working Paper 558/2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3688896.
Association of American Law Schools. “Faculty Perspectives: Does Your Law School Need a Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence?” 2024. https://www.aals.org/about/publications/newsletters/aals-news-summer-2023/faculty-perspectives-does-your-law-school-need-a-policy-on-generative-artificial-intelligence/.
Atchley, Paul, Hannah Pannell, Kaelyn Wofford, Michael Hopkins and Ruth Ann Atchley. “Human and AI Collaboration in the Higher Education Environment: Opportunities and Concerns.” Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 9, no 1 (2024): 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00547-9.
Atlas, Stephen. ChatGPT for Higher Education and Professional Development: A Guide to Conversational AI. (University of Rhode Island, 2023). https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cba_facpubs/548.
Baginski, Kristen and Celeste Pometto DiNicola “AI Goes to Law School.” (blog), xira, January 8, 2024. https://xira.com/p/2024/01/08/ai-goes-to-law-school-sponsored/.
Baker, Jamie. “2018 A Legal Research Odyssey: Artificial Intelligence as Disruptor.” Law Library Journal 110, no 1 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2978703.
Baker, Ryan S. and Aaron Hawn. “Algorithmic Bias in Education.” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 32 (2021): 1052–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9.
Bar and Bench. “LLM Student Sues Jindal Global Law School for Failing Him over AI-Generated Exam Submission.” Bar and Bench, November 4, 2024. https://www.barandbench.com/news/llm-student-sues-jindal-global-law-school-failing-him-ai-generated-exam-submission.
Baryes, Dovilė and Roee Sarel. “Algorithms in the Court: Does it Matter which Part of the Judicial Decision-making is Automated?” Artificial Intelligence and Law 32 (2024): 117–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09343-6.
Bedford, Narelle, Wendy Bonython and Alice Taylor. “Law as It Is, and How It Could Be: Law Reform Participation as Authentic Assessment and a Pedagogical Tool.” The Law Teacher 58, no 1 (2024): 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2023.2288415.
Beiser, Vince. “AI & the Law... & What It Means for Legal Education & Lawyers.” Georgetown Law, January 2, 2024. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/ai-the-law-what-it-means-for-legal-education-lawyers/.
Bhattacharya, Paheli, Kaustubh Hiware, Subham Rajgaria, Nilay Pochhi, Kripabandhu Ghosh and Saptarshi Ghosh. “A Comparative Study of Summarization Algorithms Applied to Legal Case Judgments.” In Advances in Information Retrieval, edited by Leif Azzopardi, Benno Stein, Norbert Fuhr, Philipp Mayr, Claudia Hauff and Djoerd Hiemstra, 413–428. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15712-8_27.
Bigda, Jordan. “The Legal Profession: From Humans to Robots.” Journal of High Technology Law (2018): 396–428. https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.suffolk.edu/dist/5/1153/files/2018/05/THE-LEGAL-PROFESSION-FROM-HUMANS-TO-ROBOTS-121x1wu.pdf.
Bliss, John. (2004). “Teaching Law in the Age of Generative AI.” Jurimetrics, U Denver Legal Studies Research Paper. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4682456.
Boon, Andrew and Julian Webb, “Legal Education and Training in England and Wales: Back to the Future?,” Journal of Legal Education 58, no 1 (2008): 79–121. https://paulmaharg.com/letr/references/storage/U7RC3RR2/Boon%20%26%20Webb%2C%20back%20to%20the%20future.pdf.
Brooks, Susan L., Cynthia Adcock, Stephen Ellmann, Robert L. Jr Jones, Christine Cimini and Margaret Barry. “Experience the Future: Papers from the Second National Symposium on Experiential Education in Law: Alliance for Experiential Learning in Law.” Elon Law Review 7 (2015): 1–108. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/elonlr7&id=9&div=&collection=.
Button, Ken. “11 Best Legal AI Tools for Legal Professionals in 2024.” ContractSafe, August 16, 2024 https://www.contractsafe.com/blog/legal-ai-tools.
CaseFox. “AI and Legal Education: Preparing Law Students for a Tech-Driven Future.” LinkedIn, June 22, 2024. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ai-legal-education-preparing-law-students-tech-driven-future-5msqf/.
Chan, Cecilia Ka Yuk. “A Comprehensive AI Policy Education Framework for University Teaching and Learning.” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 20, no 1 (2023): 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3.
Chan, Cecilia Ka Yuk and Wenjie Hu. “Students’ Voices on Generative AI: Perceptions, Benefits, and Challenges in Higher Education.” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 20 (2023): 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8.
Chandra, Rushil and Karun Sanjaya. Artificial Intelligence and Law. Academic Guru Publishing House, 2024.
Chiu, Thomas K. F., Qi Xia, Xinyan Zhou, Ching Sing Chai and Miaoting Cheng. “Systematic Literature Review on Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Research Recommendations of Artificial Intelligence in Education.” Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence 4 (2022): 100118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118.
Choi, Jonathan H., Kristin E. Hickman, Amy B. Monohan and Daniel Schwarcz. “ChatGPT Goes to Law School.” Journal of Legal Education 71, no 3 (2022). https://jle.aals.org/home/vol71/iss3/2/.
Collin, Sean, William Wright and Barrett Spraggins. “Incorporating AI: A Road Map for Legal and Ethical Compliance.” American Bar Association. July, 2024. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law/publications/landslide/2023-24/june-july/incorporating-ai-road-map-legal-ethical-compliance/.
Collins, Allan and Richard Halverson. Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology: The Digital Revolution and Schooling in America (Teachers College Press, 2018).
Connell, William and Megan Hamlin Black. “Artificial Intelligence and Legal Education.” The Computer & Internet Lawyer 36, no 5 (2019).
Cornell University. “AI & Academic Integrity,” Center for Teaching Innovation. https://teaching.cornell.edu/generative-artificial-intelligence/ai-academic-integrity.
Cornett, Logan. “Better Lawyer Licensing, Part 4: The Final Three Building Blocks of Minimum Competence.” IAALS (blog), October 2, 2023. https://iaals.du.edu/blog/better-lawyer-licensing-part-4-final-three-building-blocks-minimum-competence.
Crawford, Joseph, Michael Cowling and Kelly-Ann Allen. “Leadership is Needed for Ethical ChatGPT: Character, Assessment, and Learning using Artificial Intelligence (AI).” Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 20, no 3 (2023): 2. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.3.02.
Create Progress. “Predictive Analytics in Legal Case Outcomes: Enhancing Strategic Decisions with AI. AI Consultancy” (blog)April 15, 2024. https://createprogress.ai/predictive-analytics-in-legal-case-outcomes-enhancing-strategic-decisions-with-ai/.
Cwik Cynthia, Bridget McCormack, Dean Andrew Perlman and Joseph Gartner,“AI and Legal Education Survey Results 2024.” American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/centers_commissions/center-for-innovation/artificial-intelligence/ai-in-legal-education/.
Dara Dimitrov. “Law Students and AI: The Challenges for Law Academics.” Australasian Law Academics Association Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 2024. https://flinderslaw.github.io/2024ALAAConference/docs/zabstracts/5/B3.
Davenport, Thomas H. and Julia Kirby. Only Humans Need Apply: Winners & Losers in the Age of Smart Machines. HarperCollins, 2016.
de Bruijn, Hans, Martijn Warnier and Marijn Janssen. “The Perils and Pitfalls of Explainable AI: Strategies for Explaining Algorithmic Decision-making.” Government Information Quarterly 39, no 2 (2022): 101666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101666.
de Fine Licht, Karl. “Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Why the ‘Banning Approach’ to Student use is Sometimes Morally Justified.” Philosophy & Technology 37, no 3 (2024): 113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00799-9.
Deng, Xuefei (Nancy) and K. D. Joshi. “Promoting Ethical Use of Generative AI in Education.” ACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems 55, no 3 (2024): 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3685235.3685237.
Dietis, Nikolas. “Three Ways to Use ChatGPT to Enhance Students’ Critical Thinking in the Classroom.” Times Higher Education, January 8, 2024. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/three-ways-use-chatgpt-enhance-students-critical-thinking-classroom.
Dino, Angelica. “American Bar Association Survey Highlights Growing Integration of AI in Legal Education.” Canadian Lawyer, July 9, 2024. https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/international/american-bar-association-survey-highlights-growing-integration-of-ai-in-legal-education/387222.
Eaton, Sarah Elaine and Rahul Kumar. Academic Integrity Lessons: Practical Ideas for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. Calgary: University of Calgary, 2023. https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/42226.
Elali, Faisal R. and Leena N. Rachid. “AI-generated Research Paper Fabrication and Plagiarism in the Scientific Community.” Patterns 4, no 3 (2023): 100706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100706.
ELSA Speak. “How to Pronounce CONFIDENCE in American English.” ELSA Speak, May 11, 2024. https://elsaspeak.com/en/learn-english/how-to-pronounce.
Emsley, Robin. “ChatGPT: These are Not Hallucinations – They’re Fabrications and Falsifications.” Schizophrenia 9, no 1 (2023): 52. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-023-00379-4.
Felten, Edward, Manav Raj and Robert Seamans. “How will Language Modelers like ChatGPT Affect Occupations and Industries?” SSRN Electronic Journal. 2023. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4375268.
Felten, Edward, Manav Raj and Robert Seamans. “Occupational, Industry, and Geographic Exposure to Artificial Intelligence: A Novel Dataset And Its Potential Uses.” Strategic Management Journal 42, no 12 (2021): 2195–2217. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3286.
Ferraretto, Mark. “‘I Don’t Know Why I’m Doing This’: Teaching Tech Skills to Law Students.” Australasian Law Academics Association Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 2024.
Fowler, Geoffrey A. “We Tested a New ChatGPT-detector for Teachers. It Flagged an Innocent Student.” Washington Post, April 3, 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/01/chatgpt-cheating-detection-turnitin/.
Friesen Erica. “The Artificial Researcher: Information Literacy and AI in the Legal Research Classroom.” Legal Writing 26, no 2 (2022) https://www.legalwritingjournal.org/article/35281-the-artificial-researcher-information-literacy-and-ai-in-the-legal-research-classroom.
Fyfe, Paul. “How to Cheat on your Final Paper: Assigning AI for Student Writing.” AI & Society 38 (2023): 1395–1405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01397-z.
Gallardo, Katherina. “Competency-Based Assessment and the Use of Performance-Based Evaluation Rubrics in Higher Education: Challenges Towards the Next Decade.” Problems of Education in the 21st Century 78, no 1 (2020): 61–79. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=940597.
Garingan, Dominique and Alison Jane Pickard. “Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice: Exploring Theoretical Frameworks for Algorithmic Literacy in the Legal Information Profession.” Legal Information Management 21, no 2 (2021): 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1472669621000190.
George, A. Shaji. “Preparing Students for an AI-Driven World: Rethinking Curriculum and Pedagogy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.” Partners Universal Innovative Research Publication 1, no 2 (2023): 112–136. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10245675.
Georgia Tech Professional Education. “Meet Jill Watson: Georgia Tech’s First AI Teaching Assistant.” (blog). https://pe.gatech.edu/blog/meet-jill-watson-georgia-techs-first-ai-teaching-assistant.
Gerald, Stephanie. “Conclusion: Prepare for the Evolution of AI in Law.” The Colleges of Law (blog), May 13, 2024. https://www.collegesoflaw.edu/blog/2024/02/22/artificial-intelligence-law-evolution/.
Getman, Anatolii P., Oleg M. Yaroshenko, Roman V. Shapoval, Roman Ye. Prokopiev and Maryna I. Demura. “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Legal Decision-making.” International Comparative Jurisprudence 9, no 2 (2023): 155–169. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1210529.
Ghamrawi, Norma, Tarek Shal and Najah A. R. Ghamrawi. “Exploring the Impact of AI on Teacher Leadership: Regressing or Expanding?” Education and Information Technologies 29, no 7 (2024): 8415–8433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12174-w.
Goel, Ashok K., and David A. Joyner. “Using AI to Teach AI: Lessons from an Online AI Class.” AI Magazine, 38, no 2 (2017): 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v38i2.2732.
Gray, Mary L. and Siddhart Suri. Ghost Work: How to Stop Silicon Valley from Building a New Global Underclass. New York: Harper Business, 2019.
Greenstein, Dana. “LexisNexis Collaborates with U.S. Law Schools to Roll Out Lexis+ AI, Marking First Widespread Use of Legal Generative AI Solution in Law School Education.” LexisNexis PressRoom, December 20, 2023. https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/pressroom/b/news/posts/lexisnexis-collaborates-with-u-s-law-schools-to-roll-out-lexis-ai-marking-first-widespread-use-of-legal-generative-ai-solution-in-law-school-education.
Gutowski, Nachman N. and Jeremy Hurley. “AI in Legal Education: Drafting Policies for Balancing Innovation and Integrity.” SSRN (2023). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4628812.
Hill, Julianne. “Profs Trade Notes as Law Schools Write Generative AI Policies.” ABA Journal (blog), January 2, 2024. https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/law-profs-trade-notes-as-law-school-write-generative-ai-policies#google_vignette.
Hodge, Samuel D. Jr. “Revolutionizing Justice: Unleashing the Power of Artificial Intelligence.” SMU Science and Technology Law Review 26, no 2 (2023): 217–258. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/comlrtj26&id=231&div=&collection=.
Hristova, Bobby. “Some Students are Using ChatGPT to Cheat — Here’s How Schools are Trying to Stop It.” CBC, February 2, 2023. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/chatgpt-school-cheating-1.6734580.
Huang, Changwu, Zeqi Zhang, Bifei Mao and Xin Yao. “An Overview of Artificial Intelligence Ethics.” IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence 4, no 4 (2023): 799–819. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAI.2022.3194503.
Iansiti, Marco and Karim R. Lakhani. Competing in the Age of AI: Strategy and Leadership When Algorithms and Networks Run the World. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2020.
Ienca, Marcello. “On Artificial Intelligence and Manipulation.” Topoi 42, no 3 (2023): 833–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-023-09940-3.
International Bar Association. “The Future Is Now: Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession.” (2024). https://www.ibanet.org/document?id=The-future-is%20now-AI-and-the-legal-profession-report.
James, Nickolas J. “More Than Merely Work-ready: Vocationalism Versus Professionalism in Legal Education.” UNSW Law Journal 40, no 1 (2017): 186–209. https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/40-1-9.pdf.
Janoski-Haehlen, Emily and Sarah Starnes. “The Ghost in the Machine: Artificial Intelligence in Law Schools.” Duquesne Law Review 58 (2020): 3. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/duqu58&id=9&div=&collection=.
Kaledio Potter, Robert Abill and Louis Frank. “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Students’ Learning Experience.” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4716747.
Kazmi, Asyia. “Can AI Transform Education?” Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, September 11, 2024. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/articles/ai-tools-education-technology.
Koch, Cornelia. “Using Generative AI for Assessment Design, Evaluation and Feedback: Opportunities and Challenges.” Australasian Law Academics Association Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 2024.
Kontra, Samantha. “Building GenAI into Law Assessments: How Do Students Use GenAI When Given the Chance?” Australasian Law Academics Association Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 2024.
Koo, Gene. “New Skills, New Learning: Legal Education and the Promise of New Technology.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY, March 26, 2007. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.976646.
Koos, Stefan and Sebastian Wachsmann. “Navigating the Impact of ChatGPT/GPT4 on Legal Academic Examinations: Challenges, Opportunities and Recommendations.” Media Iuris 6, no 2 (2023): 255–270. https://doi.org/10.20473/mi.v6i2.45270.
Kurtz, Gila, Meital Amzalag, Nava Shaked, Yanay Zaguri, Dan Kohen-Vacs, Eran Gal, Gideon Zailer and Eran Barak-Medina. “Strategies for Integrating Generative AI into Higher Education: Navigating Challenges and Leveraging Opportunities.” Education Sciences 14, no 5 (2024): 503. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14050503.
Labin, Shlomit and Uri Segal. “AI-Driven Contract Review: A Product Development Journey.” In Research Handbook on Big Data Law, edited by Roland Vogl, 454–466. 2021. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788972826.00029.
Legg, Michael and Felicity Bell. Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession. First edition. Oxford: Hart Publishing, n.p, 2020. https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph?docid=b-9781509931842.
Lewis, Caitlain Devereaux. “All In: Strategic Approaches to Incorporating AI into Legal Higher Education.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. April 21, 2024. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4818383.
Lindstrom, Jeff “The Environmental Impact of GenAI.” Intentional Futures (blog). Accessed November 6, 2024. https://www.intentionalfutures.com/posts/the-environmental-impact-of-genai.
Luckin, Rose, Wayne Holmes, Mark Griffiths and Laurie B. Forcier. Intelligence Unleashed: An Argument for AI in Education. (London: Pearson, 2016). https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/corporate/global/pearson-dot-com/files/innovation/Intelligence-Unleashed-Publication.pdf.
Luckin, Rosemary, Mutlu Cukurova, Carmel Kent and Benedict du Boulay. “Empowering Educators to Be AI-Ready.” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 3 (2022): 100076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100076.
Madison, Benjamin V. III. “The Elephant in Law School Classrooms: Overuse of the Socratic Method as an Obstacle to Teaching Modern Law Students.” University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 85, no 3 (2008): 293–346. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/udetmr85&id=303&div=&collection=.
Magesh, Varun, Faiz Surani, Matthew Dahl, Mirac Suzgun, Christopher D. Manning, Daniel E. Ho. “Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools.” (preprint submitted in 2024), arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.20362.
Maleki, Negar, Balaji Padmanabhan and Kaushik Dutta. “AI Hallucinations: A Misnomer Worth Clarifying.” In 2024 IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence (CAI), 133–138. IEEE, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/cai59869.2024.00033.
Marengo, Agostino, Alessandro Pagano, Jenny Pange and Kamal Ahmed Soomro. “The Educational Value of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A 10-year Systematic Literature Review.” Interactive Technology and Smart Education 21, no 4 (2024): 625–644. https://doi.org/10.1108/itse-11-2023-0218.
Mary Sowjanya, A. and Kotagiri Srividya. “NLP-Driven Chatbots.” In Conversational Artificial Intelligence, edited by Romil Rawat, Rajesh Kumar Chakrawarti, Sanjaya Kumar Sarangi, Piyush Vyas, Mary Sowjanya Alamanda, Kotagiri Srividya and Krishnan Sakthidasan Sankaran, 713–25. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394200801.ch39.
McDonald, Nora, Aditya Johri, Areej Ali and Aayushi Hingle. “Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Evidence from an Analysis of Institutional Policies and Guidelines.” (preprint submitted in 2024), arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.01659.
Michalakopoulou, Kalliopi, Alexandros Nikitas and Jill Johnes. “Innovation in the Legal Service Industry: Examining the Roles of Human and Social Capital, and Knowledge and Technology Transfer.” The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 25, no 4 (2022) 146575032211196. https://doi.org/10.1177/14657503221119667.
Michel-Villarreal, Rosario, Eliseo Vilalta-Perdomo, David Ernesto Salinas-Navarro, Ricardo Thierry-Aguilera and Flor Silvestre Gerardou. “Challenges and Opportunities of Generative AI for Higher Education as Explained by ChatGPT.” Education Sciences 13, no 9 (2023): 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090856.
Migliorini, Sara and João Ilhão Moreira. “The Case for Nurturing AI Literacy in Law Schools.” Asian Journal of Legal Education (2024). https://doi.org/10.1177/23220058241265613.
Mohideen, H. L. M. “Exploring the Opportunities of Implementing Artificial Intelligence (AI) Technology for Teaching Arabic to Non-Native Speakers: A Theoretical Approach.” Journal of Digital Learning and Distance Education 2, no 10 (2024): 760–767. https://doi.org/10.56778/jdlde.v2i9.225.
Moore, Earl. “Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality In eLearning: Providing Deeper Engagement.” eLearning Industry, August 3, 2023. https://elearningindustry.com/virtual-reality-and-augmented-reality-in-elearning-providing-deeper-engagement.
Mountain, Darryl R. “Disrupting Conventional Law Firm Business Models using Document Assembly.” International Journal of Law and Information Technology 15, no 2 (2006): 170–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eal019.
Murray, Michael D. “Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law Part 1: Lawyers Must be Professional and Responsible Supervisors of AI.” SSRN (2023). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4478588.
National Law University Delhi. “Academic Initiatives.” Accessed July 18, 2024. https://nludelhi.ac.in/academics/academic-initiative/.
Nazer, Lama H., Razan Zatarah, Shai Waldrip, Janny Xue Chen Ke, Mira Moukheiber, Ashish K. Khanna, Rachel S. Hicklen, Lama Moukheiber, Dana Moukheiber, Haobo Ma and Piyush Mathur. “Bias in Artificial Intelligence Algorithms and Recommendations for Mitigation.” PLOS Digit Health 2, no 6 (2023): e0000278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000278.
Neal, Jeff. “Harvard Law Expert Explains How AI May Transform the Legal Profession in 2024.” Harvard Law School. Accessed July 18, 2024. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/harvard-law-expert-explains-how-ai-may-transform-the-legal-profession-in-2024/.
Ng, Davy Tsz Kit, Jac Ka Lok Leung, Samuel Kai Wah Chu, and Maggie Shen Qiao. “Conceptualizing AI Literacy: An Exploratory Review.” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 2 (January 1, 2021): 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041.
Nguyen, Andy, Ha Ngan Ngo, Yvonne Hong, Belle Dang & Bich-Phuong Thi Nguyen, “Ethical Principles for Artificial Intelligence in Education>” (2023) 28 Education and Information Technologies 28 (2023): 4221-4241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11316-w.
O’Brien, Matt. “Explainer: What is ChatGPT and why are schools blocking it?” AP News, January 7, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/what-is-chat-gpt-ac4967a4fb41fda31c4d27f015e32660.
Ocumpaugh, Jaclyn, Ryan Baker, Sujith Gowda, Neil T. Heffernan and Cristina Heffernan. “Population Validity for Educational Data Mining Models: A Case Study in Affect Detection.” British Journal of Educational Technology 45, no 3 (2014): 487–501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12156.
Ouyang, Shan and Peng Nai. “Expl Ouyang, Shan, and Peng Nai. “Exploring Intelligent Higher Education of Law: Moot Court Based on VR and AI Technology,” 166–69. Atlantis Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2991/icpcs-19.2019.39.
Peñalver, Mónica Fernández “The Vital Role of Human Oversight in Ethical AI Governance.” Nemko (blog), February 26, 2024. https://www.nemko.com/blog/keeping-ai-in-check-the-critical-role-of-human-agency-and-oversight
Perkins, Mike. “Academic Integrity Considerations of AI Large Language Models in the Post-pandemic Era: ChatGPT and Beyond.” Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 20, no 2 (2023). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.07.
Perrigo, Billy. “Exclusive: OpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour to Make ChatGPT Less Toxic.” Time, January 18, 2018. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/.
Pienaar, Celia. “Machine Learning in Predictive Analytics on Judicial Decision-making.” Master thesis, University of Cape Town, 2021. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/33925.
Porter, Elizabeth. “The Socratic Method.” In Building on Best Practices: Transforming Legal Education in a Changing World, edited by Deborah Maranville, Lisa Radtke Bliss, Carolyn Wilkes Kaas and Antoinette Sedillo López, 101–252. New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis, 2015. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-chapters/4.
Press Information Bureau. “Artificial Intelligence in Judiciary.” August 9, 2024. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2043476.
Qadir, Junaid. (2023). “Engineering Education in the Era of ChatGPT: Promise and Pitfalls of Generative AI for Education.” In 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 1–9. IEEE, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/educon54358.2023.10125121.
Qinqing Xu. “Magic Defeat Magic? - An Examination about AI Plagiarism and the Impact on Legal Education and Research.” Australasian Law Academics Association Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 2024.
Reid, Melanie. “A Call to Arms: Why and How Lawyers and Law Schools Should Embrace Artificial Intelligence.” University of Toledo Law Review 50, no 3 (2019): 477–490. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/utol50&id=503&div=&collection=.
Rodgers, Ian, John Armour and Mari Sako. “How Technology Is (or Is Not) Transforming Law Firms.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 19, no 1 (2023): 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-074716.
Romportl, Jan, Eva Zackova, and Jozef Kelemen. Beyond Artificial Intelligence: The Disappearing Human-Machine Divide. Springer, 2014.
Rowles, James P. “Toward Balancing the Goals of Legal Education.” Journal of Legal Education 31 (1981): 375–398. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ259892.
Ryan-Mosley, Tate. “How one elite university is approaching ChatGPT this school year.” MIT Technology Review, September 15, 2023. https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/09/04/1078932/elite-university-chatgpt-this-school-year/.
Saaida, Mohammed B. E. “AI-Driven transformations in higher education: Opportunities and challenges.” International Journal of Educational Research and Studies 5, no 1 (2023): 29–36. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8164415.
Savelka, Jaromir, Matthias Grabmair, and Kevin D. Ashley. “A Law School Course in Applied Legal Analytics and AI.” Law in Context: A Socio-Legal Journal 37 (2022 2020): 134. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lwincntx37&id=134&div=&collection=.
Schwartz, David L., Leslie Oster, Devin R. Desai, Jay P. Kesan, Pierre Larouche, Daryl Lim, Ivory Mills, Pilar Ossorio and Laura Pedraza-Fariña, Jacob S. Sherkow, Jessica Silbey, D. Daniel Sokol, Harry Surden, Ryan Whalen and Christopher S. Yoo. “Bridges II: The Law-STEM Alliance & Next Generation Innovation.” Northwestern University Law Review 112 (2018): 133–176. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr_online/256.
Sen, Sumedha. “Best AI-Powered Language Learning Apps.” Analytics Insight, August 30, 2024. https://www.analyticsinsight.net/artificial-intelligence/best-ai-powered-language-learning-apps.
Shah, Priten. AI and the Future of Education: Teaching in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. John Wiley & Sons, 2023.
Shamani, Raj. “3 Reasons Why AI Can Never Replace Humans.”Medium, September 15, 2023, https://rajshamani.medium.com/3-reasons-why-ai-can-never-replace-humans-e5bc9a654ef7#:~:text=Humans%20possess%20a%20moral%20compass,or%20make%20nuanced%20ethical%20judgments.
Shi, S. J., J. W. Li and R. Zhang. “A Study on the Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence Supported Situational Interactive Teaching on Students’ ‘Flow’ Experience and Learning Effectiveness — a Case Study of Legal Education in China.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 44, no 1 (2024): 112–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2024.2305161.
Simon, Michael, Alvin F. Lindsay, Sosa Llosa and Paige Comparato. “Lola v. Skadden and the Automation of the Legal Profession.” Yale Journal of Law & Technology, , 20 (2018). 234. https://www.hoganlovells.com/~/media/hogan-lovells/pdf/2018/20_yale_jl_tech_234.pdf.
Singh, Manjari. “Review on Role of Artificial Intelligence in The Life of Legal Profession.” International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation 6, no 3 (2024): 1087–1089. https://ijlsi.com/wp-content/uploads/Review-on-Role-of-Artificial-Intelligence-in-The-Life-of-Legal-Profession.pdf.
Sloan, Karen. “Law schools boost their AI offerings as industry booms.” Reuters, June 18, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/law-schools-boost-their-ai-offerings-industry-booms-2024-06-18/.
Smith, Craig “Reimagining Assessment in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Reflection on Legal Education.” Innovative Practice in Higher Education 5 no 3 (2024). <https://journals.staffs.ac.uk/index.php/ipihe/article/view/243> accessed 8 November 2024
Som S. Biswas, “Role of Chat GPT in Public Health,” Annals of Biomedical Engineering 51, no. 5 (March 15, 2023): 868–69, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03172-7.
Sonsteng, John O., Donna Ward, Colleen Bruce and Michael Petersen. “A Legal Education Renaissance: A Practical Approach for the Twenty-First Century.” William Mitchell Law Review 34, no 1 (2007): 303–472. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/wmitch34&id=313&div=&collection=.
Sourdin, Tania. “Judge V Robot? Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Decision-making.” UNSW Law Journal 41, no 4 (2018): 1114–1133. https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Sourdin.pdf.
Stecher, Brian M. and Sheila Nataraj Kirby. Organizational Improvement and Accountability: Lessons for Education from Other Sectors. Rand Corporation, 2004.
Stokel-Walker, Chris. “Can a Technology Called RAG Keep AI Models from Making Stuff Up?” ars technica (blog). June 6, 2024 https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/06/can-a-technology-called-rag-keep-ai-models-from-making-stuff-up/.
Strauß, Stefan. “‘Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood’: Critical AI Literacy for the Constructive Use of AI Technology.” TATuP - Zeitschrift Für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie Und Praxis 30, no 3 (2021): 44–49. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.30.3.44.
Strubell, Emily, Ananya Ganesh and Andrew McCallum. “Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP.” arXiv. ((preprint submitted in 2019). https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.02243.
Susskind, Richard E. The End of Lawyers?: Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Susskind, Richard. Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford University Press, 2021.
Susskind, Richard. The Future of Law: Facing the Challenges of Information Technology. Oxford University Press, 1996.
Taylor, Luke. “Colombian judge says he used ChatGPT in ruling.” The Guardian, February 28, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/03/colombia-judge-chatgpt-ruling.
Thanaraj, Ann and Kris Gledhill. Teaching Legal Education in the Digital Age: Pedagogical Practices to Digitally Empower Law Graduates. Taylor & Francis, 2022.
Thanaraj, Ann. “Studying Law in a Digital Age: Preparing Law Students for Participation in a Technologically-Advanced Multidisciplinary and Complex Professional Environment.” Nottingham Law Journal 27 (2018): 62–81. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/notnghmlj27&id=214&div=&collection=.
Thomson Reuters. “Future of Professionals Report 2024: An Executive Summary for the Legal Profession.” July 6, 2024. https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/legal-future-of-professionals-executive-summary/
Times of India. “Watch: CJI Asks AI Lawyer, ‘Is Death Penalty Constitutional in India?’ — See its Response.” Times of India, November 10, 2024. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/watch-cji-asks-ai-lawyer-is-death-penalty-constitutional-in-india-see-its-response/articleshow/115075433.cms.
Tokayev, Kassym-Jomart. “Ethical Implications of Large Language Models A Multidimensional Exploration of Societal, Economic, and Technical Concerns.” International Journal of Social Analytics 8, no 9 (2023): 17–33. https://norislab.com/index.php/ijsa/article/view/42.
Tripathy, Ankita. “AI In The Legal Profession: Capabilities, Limitations, And Future Prospects.” Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR), 11 no 9 (2024). https://www.jetir.org/view?paper=JETIR2409299.
University of Chicago Law School. “Law School Policy on Generative AI.”2024.. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/students/handbook/academicmatters/generative-ai.
University of Michigan Law School. “Artificial Intelligence and the Law.” Accessed July 18, 2024. https://michigan.law.umich.edu/courses/artificial-intelligence-and-law.
Vig, Shinu. “Intersection of Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: An Indian Perspective.” Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, (2024). https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-08-2023-0145.
Vlachostergiou, Aggeliki, George Caridakis, Phivos Mylonas and Andreas Stafylopatis. “Learning Representations of Natural Language Texts with Generative Adversarial Networks at Document, Sentence, and Aspect Level.” Algorithms 11, no 10 (2018): 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/a11100164.
Waisberg, Noah and Alexander Hudek. AI For Lawyers: How Artificial Intelligence is Adding Value, Amplifying Expertise, and Transforming Careers. John Wiley & Sons, 2021.
Webb, Julian, Jane Ching, Paul Maharg and Avrom Sherr. Setting Standards: The Future of Legal Services Education and Training Regulation in England and Wales. (Legal Education and Training Review, 2013). https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/100978.
Westfall, Chris. “Educators Battle Plagiarism as 89% of Students Admit to Using OpenAI’s ChatGPT for Homework.” Forbes, January 28, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriswestfall/2023/01/28/educators-battle-plagiarism-as-89-of-students-admit-to-using-open-ais-chatgpt-for-homework/.
Williams, Ryan Thomas. “The ethical implications of using generative chatbots in higher education.” Frontiers in Education 8 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1331607.
Wilson, Margaret. “The Making of a New Legal Education in New Zealand: Waikato Law School.” Waikato Law Review 1 (1993): 1. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/waik1&id=5&div=&collection=.
Wintersteiger, Lisa. “Pedagogies of Justice: Critical Approaches to Public Legal Education” (2020) PhD thesis, University of London. https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/44178/.
Wright, Megan. “From Classrooms to Courtrooms: How AI is Reshaping Legal Education.” IdeaScale, October 24, 2024. https://ideascale.com/blog/ai-in-law-schools/.
Wright, Mike, Donald S. Siegel and Philippe Mustar. “An Emerging Ecosystem for Student Start-Ups.” The Journal of Technology Transfer 42, no 4 (2017): 909–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9558-z.
Xatamova, Nodiraxon and Jahongir Ashurov “The Future of Legal English Learning: Integrating AI into ESP Education.” SPAST Reports 1, no 7 (2024) https://doi.org/10.69848/sreports.v1i7.5081.
Xiao, Ping, Yuanyuan Chen, and Weining Bao. “Waiting, Banning, and Embracing: An Empirical Analysis of Adapting Policies for Generative AI in Higher Education.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. 2023. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4458269.
Yale Law School. “AI and the Possibilities for the Legal Profession and Legal Education.” Yale Law School, May 3, 2023. https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/ai-and-possibilities-legal-profession-and-legal-education.
Yale Law School. “Information Society Project.” https://law.yale.edu/isp.
Yale Law School. “Yale Law School Shapes the Future of Artificial Intelligence.” Yale Law School, April 10, 2024. https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/yale-law-school-shapes-future-artificial-intelligence.
Yang, Shudong, Huiyi Tian, Lin Sun and Xueying Yu. “From One-Size-Fits-All Teaching to Adaptive Learning: The Crisis and Solution of Education in The Era of AI.” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1237, no 4 (2019): 042039. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1237/4/042039.
Yu, Hao. “Reflection on Whether Chat GPT Should be Banned by Academia from the Perspective of Education and Teaching.” Frontiers in Psychology 14 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1181712.
Yusuf, Abdullahi, Nasrin Pervin and Marcos Román-González. “Generative AI and the Future of Higher Education: A Threat to Academic Integrity or Reformation? Evidence from Multicultural Perspectives.” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 21, no 1 (2024): 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00453-6.
Zafar, Ammar. “Balancing the Scale: Navigating Ethical and Practical Challenges of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Integration in Legal Practices.” Discover Artificial Intelligence 4 (2024): 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-024-00121-8.
[1] Associate Professor at the Saveetha School of Law (SIMATS), Chennai, India.
[2] Assistant Professor, School of Law, Amity University Dubai.
[3] Porter, “The Socratic Method.”
[4] Wilson, “The Making of a New Legal Education in New Zealand.”
[5] Wilson, “The Making of a New Legal Education in New Zealand.”
[6] Wintersteiger, “Pedagogies of Justice.”
[7] Madison, “The Elephant in Law School Classrooms.”
[8] Boon, “Legal Education and Training in England and Wales.”
[9] James, “More Than Merely Work-ready.”
[10] James, “More Than Merely Work-ready.”
[11] Sonsteng, “A Legal Education Renaissance”; Bedford, “Law as It Is, and How It Could Be.”
[12] Saaida, “AI-Driven Transformations in Higher Education.”
[13] Singh, “Review on Role of Artificial Intelligence in The Life of Legal Profession.”
[14] Getman, “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Legal Decision-making.”
[15] Wright, “Classrooms to Courtrooms.”
[16] Wright, “Classrooms to Courtrooms.”
[17] Garingan, “Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice.”
[18] Thanaraj, Teaching Legal Education in the Digital Age.
[19] Reid, “A Call to Arms.”
[20] Atlas, ChatGPT for Higher Education and Professional Development.
[21] Collins, Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology.
[22] Kazmi, “Can AI Transform Education?”
[23] Kazmi, “Can AI Transform Education?”
[24] Kazmi, “Can AI Transform Education?”
[25] Kazmi, “Can AI Transform Education?”
[26] Gerald, “Conclusion”; Deng, “Promoting Ethical Use of Generative AI in Education.”
[27] Beiser, “AI & the Law.”
[28] Chan, “Students’ Voices on Generative AI.”
[29] Yusuf, “Generative AI and the Future of Higher Education.”
[30] Alarie, “Will Machines Replace Us?”
[31] See generally Davenport and Kirby, Only Humans Need Apply.
[32] Iansiti, Competing in the Age of AI.
[33] Felten, How Will Language Modelers Like ChatGPT Affect Occupations and Industries; Armour, “Augmented Lawyering.”
[34] Vig, “Intersection of Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright.”
[35] Vig, “Intersection of Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright.”
[36] Felten, “Occupational, Industry, and Geographic Exposure to Artificial Intelligence.”
[37] Susskind, The Future of Law; Mountain, “Disrupting Conventional Law Firm Business Models Using Document Assembly”; Susskind, The End of Lawyers?; Legg, Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession.
[38] Alier, “Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education.”
[39] Vlachostergiou, “Learning Representations of Natural Language Texts with Generative Adversarial Networks at Document, Sentence, and Aspect Level.”
[40] Mary Sowjanya, “NLP-Driven Chatbots.”
[41] Koos, “Navigating the Impact of ChatGPT/GPT4 on Legal Academic Examinations.”
[42] Bhattacharya, “A Comparative Study of Summarization Algorithms Applied to Legal Case Judgments.”
[43] Sourdin, “Judge V Robot?”; Barysė, “Algorithms in the Court.”
[44] Taylor, “Colombian Judge.”
[45] Taylor, “Colombian Judge.”
[46] Times of India, “Death Penalty.”
[47] Press Information Bureau, “Artificial Intelligence in Judiciary.”
[48] Susskind, Online Courts and the Future of Justice.
[49] Legg, Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession.
[50] Beiser, “AI & the Law.”
[51] Beiser, “AI & the Law.”
[52] Xiao, “Waiting, Banning, and Embracing”; Ryan-Mosley, “Elite University.”
[53] Xiao, “Waiting, Banning, and Embracing”; Ryan-Mosley, “Elite University.”
[54] O’Brien, “Explainer.”
[55] Chiu, “Systematic Literature Review on Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Research Recommendations of Artificial Intelligence in Education.”
[56] The International Bar Association, “The Future is Now: Artificial Intelligence and The Legal Profession.”
[57] Rowles, “Toward Balancing the Goals of Legal Education”; Webb, Setting Standards.
[58] Rowles, “Toward Balancing the Goals of Legal Education”; Webb, Setting Standards.
[59] Thanaraj, “Studying Law in a Digital Age.”
[60] Shi, “A Study on the Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence Supported Situational Interactive Teaching on Students’ ‘Flow’ Experience and Learning Effectiveness.”
[61] Brooks, “Experience the Future.”
[62] George, “Preparing Students for an AI-Driven World.”
[63] Chandra, “Artificial Intelligence and Law.”
[64] Labin, “AI-Driven Contract Review.”
[65] Mishcon de Reya hired a “GPT Legal Prompt Engineer” to integrate natural language models into its practice.
[66] Allen and Overy incorporated Harvey, a GPT-based AI, to automate tasks like contract analysis, research, and document creation.
[67] Ajevski, “ChatGPT and the Future of Legal Education and Practice.”
[68] Hodge, “Revolutionizing Justice.”
[69] Pienaar, “Machine Learning in Predictive Analytics on Judicial Decision-making.”
[70] Pienaar, “Machine Learning in Predictive Analytics on Judicial Decision-making.”
[71] Lewis, “All In.”
[72] Koo, “New Skills, New Learning.”
[73] Yu, “Reflection on Whether Chat GPT Should be Banned by Academia from the Perspective of Education and Teaching.”
[74] Crawford, “Leadership Is Needed for Ethical ChatGPT.”
[75] Tokayev, “Ethical Implications of Large Language Models.”
[76] Maleki, “AI Hallucinations.”
[77] Maleki, “AI Hallucinations.”
[78] Crawford, “Leadership Is Needed for Ethical ChatGPT.”
[79] Emsley, “ChatGPT.”
[80] Elali, “AI-generated Research Paper Fabrication and Plagiarism in the Scientific Community.”
[81] Deng, “Promoting Ethical Use of Generative AI in Education.”
[82] Hristova, “ChatGPT.”
[83] Ocumpaugh, “Population Validity for Educational Data Mining Models.”
[84] Qadir, “Engineering Education in the Era of ChatGPT.”
[85] Baker, “Algorithmic Bias in Education”.
[86] Baker, “Algorithmic Bias in Education”.
[87] Nazer, “Bias in Artificial Intelligence Algorithms and Recommendations for Mitigation.”
[88] de Bruijn, “The Perils and Pitfalls of Explainable AI.”
[89] See Michel-Villarreal, “Challenges and Opportunities of Generative AI for Higher Education as Explained by ChatGPT.”
[90] Bar and Bench, “LLM Student Sues.”
[91] Bar and Bench, “LLM Student Sues.”
[92] Fowler, “ChatGPT-detector.”
[93] Eaton, Academic Integrity Lessons.
[94] Eaton, Academic Integrity Lessons.
[95] Eaton, Academic Integrity Lessons.
[96] Zafar, “Balancing the Scale.”
[97] Kontra, “Building GenAI into Law Assessments.”
[98] Rodgers, “How Technology Is (or Is Not) Transforming Law Firms.”
[99] Bigda, “The Legal Profession.”
[100] Ng, “Conceptualizing AI Literacy.”
[101] Murray, “Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law Part 1.”
[102] Baker, “2018 A Legal Research Odyssey.”
[103] Gutowski, “AI in Legal Education.”
[104] McDonald, “Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education.”
[105] Cornett, “Better Lawyer Licensing.”
[106] Cornett, “Better Lawyer Licensing.”
[107] Koch, “Using Generative AI for Assessment Design, Evaluation and Feedback.”
[108] Koch, “Using Generative AI for Assessment Design, Evaluation and Feedback.”
[109] Perkins, “Academic Integrity Considerations of AI Large Language Models in the Post-pandemic Era.”
[110] Shah, AI and the Future of Education.
[111] de Fine Licht, “Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education.”
[112] Migliorini, “The Case for Nurturing AI Literacy in Law Schools.”
[113] Dino, “American Bar Association Survey.”
[114] Westfall, “Educators Battle Plagiarism.”
[115] Fyfe, “How to Cheat on Your Final Paper.”
[116] Huang, “An Overview of Artificial Intelligence Ethics.”
[117] Huang, “An Overview of Artificial Intelligence Ethics.”
[118] Schwartz, “Bridges II.”
[119] Yang, “From One-Size-Fits-All Teaching to Adaptive Learning.”
[120] Luckin, “Empowering Educators to Be AI-Ready.”
[121] Ghamrawi, “Exploring the Impact of AI on Teacher Leadership.”
[122] Kurtz, “Strategies for Integrating Generative AI into Higher Education.”
[123] Gallardo, “Competency-Based Assessment.”
[124] Janoski-Haehlen, “The Ghost in the Machine.”
[125] Williams, “The Ethical Implications of Using Generative Chatbots in Higher Education.”
[126] Bliss, “Teaching Law in The Age of Generative AI.”
[127] Dietis, “Three Ways to Use ChatGPT.”
[128] Atchley, “Human and AI Collaboration in the Higher Education Environment.”
[129] Bliss, “Teaching Law in The Age of Generative AI.”
[130] Strauß, “Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood.”
[131] Marengo, “The Educational Value of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education.”
[132] Lindstrom, “The Environmental Impact of GenAI.”
[133] Strubell, “Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP.”
[134] Strubell, “Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP.”
[135] Nazer, “Bias in Artificial Intelligence Algorithms and Recommendations for Mitigation.”
[136] Perrigo, “ChatGPT.”
[137] Gray, Ghost Work.
[138] Hill, “Profs Trade Notes as Law Schools Write Generative AI Policies.”
[139] Gutowski, “AI in Legal Education.”
[140] Gutowski, “AI in Legal Education.”
[141] Chan, “A Comprehensive AI Policy Education Framework for University Teaching and Learning.”
[142] Wright, “Classrooms to Courtrooms.”
[143] Sloan, “Law Schools.”
[144] Connell, “Artificial Intelligence and Legal Education.”
[145] Connell, “Artificial Intelligence and Legal Education.”
[146] Connell, “Artificial Intelligence and Legal Education.”
[147] Luckin, Intelligence Unleashed.
[148] Wright, “An Emerging Ecosystem for Student Start-Ups.”
[149] Ferraretto, “‘I Don’t Know Why I’m Doing This’.”
[150] Ouyang, “Exploring Intelligent Higher Education of Law.”
[151] See generally, Sen, “AI-Powered Language Learning Apps.”
[152] ELSA Speak, “How to Pronounce CONFIDENCE in American English.”
[153] Xatamova, "The Future of Legal English Learning."
[154] Button, “11 Best Legal AI Tools for Legal Professionals in 2024.”
[155] CaseFox, “AI and Legal Education.”
[156] Goel, “Using AI to Teach AI.”
[157] Georgia Tech Professional Education, “Meet Jill Watson.”
[158] Yale Law School, “Information Society Project.”
[159] Yale Law School, “AI and the Possibilities for the Legal Profession and Legal Education.”
[160] Yale Law School, “Yale Law School Shapes the Future of Artificial Intelligence.”
[161] Beiser, “AI & the Law.”
[162] Beiser, “AI & the Law.”
[163] University of Chicago Law School, “Law School Policy on Generative AI.”
[164] Association of American Law School, “Faculty Perspectives.”
[165] Hill, “Profs Trade Notes as Law Schools Write Generative AI Policies.”
[166] Neal, “Harvard Law Expert Explains How AI May Transform the Legal Profession in 2024.”
[167] University of Michigan Law School, “Artificial Intelligence and the Law.”
[168] University of Michigan Law School, “Artificial Intelligence and the Law.”
[169] University of Michigan Law School, “Artificial Intelligence and the Law.”
[170] National Law University Delhi, “Academic Initiatives.”
[171] Hill, “Profs Trade Notes as Law Schools Write Generative AI Policies.”
[172] The International Bar Association, “The Future Is Now.”
[173] Potter, , “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Students’ Learning Experience.”
[174] Moore, “Virtual Reality And Augmented Reality In eLearning.”
[175] Simon, “Lola v. Skadden and the Automation of the Legal Profession.”
[176] Shamani, “3 Reasons Why AI Can Never Replace Humans.”
[177] Aggarwal, Artificial Intelligence.
[178] American Bar Association, “Model Rules of Professional Conduct.”
[179] Michalakopoulou, “Innovation in the Legal Service Industry.”
[180] Simon, “Lola v. Skadden and the Automation of the Legal Profession.”
[181] Simon, “Lola v. Skadden and the Automation of the Legal Profession.”
[182] Peñalver, “The Vital Role of Human Oversight in Ethical AI Governance.”
[183] Zafar, ‘Balancing the Scale.”
[184] Tripathy, “AI In The Legal Profession.”
[185] Ienca, “On Artificial Intelligence and Manipulation.”
[186] Romportl, , Beyond Artificial Intelligence.
[187] Waisberg, AI For Lawyers.
[188] Stecher ,”Organizational Improvement and Accountability.”.
[189] Choi, “ChatGPT Goes to Law School.”
[190] Create Progress, “Predictive Analytics in Legal Case Outcomes.”
[191] Create Progress, “Predictive Analytics in Legal Case Outcomes.”
[192] Mohideen, “Exploring the Opportunities of Implementing Artificial Intelligence (AI) Technology for Teaching Arabic to Non-Native Speakers.”
[193] Baginski, “AI Goes to Law School.”
[194] Thomson Reuters, ‘The Future of Professionals.”
[195] Magesh, “Hallucination-Free?”
[196] Stokel-Walker, “Can a Technology Called RAG Keep AI Models from Making Stuff Up?”
[197] Stokel-Walker, “Can a Technology Called RAG Keep AI Models from Making Stuff Up?”
[198] Stokel-Walker, “Can a Technology Called RAG Keep AI Models from Making Stuff Up?”
[199] Stokel-Walker, “Can a Technology Called RAG Keep AI Models from Making Stuff Up?”
[200] Collin, “Incorporating AI.”
[201] Friesen, “The Artificial Researcher”
[202] Cwik, “AI and Legal Education Survey Results 2024.”
[203] Smith, “Reimagining Assessment in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence.”
[204] Hill, “Profs Trade Notes as Law Schools Write Generative AI Policies.”
[205] Gutowski, “AI in Legal Education.”
[206] Greenstein, “LexisNexis Collaborates with U.S. Law Schools to Roll Out Lexis+ AI.”
[207] Cornell University, “AI& Academic Integrity.”
[208] Nguyen, “Ethical Principles for Artificial Intelligence in Education.”
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LawTechHum/2024/19.html