Adapting to Change: Law Schools Embrace Generative AI Platforms

Embracing the Rise of Generative AI Platforms
 

Law schools are responding to the surge in generative artificial intelligence platforms by reevaluating academic integrity policies. Collaborative efforts among educators aim to integrate this emerging technology into classrooms seamlessly.
 
 A New Era: Generative AI Platforms in the Spring Semester
 
In a notable development, second-and third-year law students will gain access to Lexis+ AI, a generative AI platform, during the upcoming spring semester. This significant milestone occurred just over a year after OpenAI launched the ChatGPT chatbot.
 
 Dynamic Evolution of Policies in Law Schools
 
As generative AI platforms become more accessible and continue to evolve, law schools are in the process of formulating initial policies. These policies allow professors to customize rules to meet the specific pedagogical needs of their classes.
 
 University of California at Berkeley School of Law: Striking a Balance
 
At the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, policies allow using generative AI for specific tasks, such as serving as a search engine or aiding in grammatical corrections. However, an explicit prohibition exists for its use in exams or in any manner considered plagiaristic. Instructors have the authority to establish additional policies as needed.
 
 Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law: Navigating Boundaries
 
Conversely, the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law policy takes a comprehensive approach, prohibiting students from using generative AI to create materials submitted to instructors. Yet, instructors retain the authority to permit generative AI to an extent they find appropriate.
 
 Clarifying Policy Ambiguities
 
Daniel W. Linna Jr., a senior lecturer and director of law and technology initiatives at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, underscores the necessity for clear definitions in these policies. He suggests that generic prohibitions on the use of generative AI may lead to unintended breaches due to the inherent integration of these technologies in various tools.
 
 Tailored Approaches in Coursework
 
Certain law schools are adopting more nuanced approaches to generative AI policies. Suffolk University Law School, for example, mandates students to certify within two hours of completing take-home exams that they have yet to utilize AI, except for spelling and grammatical corrections.
 
 Fostering Faculty Collaboration
 
Recognizing the dynamic landscape of AI in legal education, educators are collaborating to exchange ideas and notes on integrating generative AI into coursework. Daniel W. Linna Jr. and April Dawson have initiated an AI and law-related course list on a dedicated website for instructors. Faculty from 104 law schools in the United States and several international institutions have actively participated.
 
Additionally, a Google group, facilitated by Linna and Dawson, has been established to facilitate discussions about ongoing developments in AI coursework. Stanford University's CyberProf email list serves as another platform for educators to address questions related to advancing AI in legal education.