US law schools integrate AI into curriculums but remain uncertain on specific policies

Law schools across the US are increasingly integrating emerging artificial intelligence (AI) technology into their curriculums, though uncertainty remains regarding specific AI policies.

According to a recent survey by the American Bar Association (ABA) and the ABA Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence, over half of the 29 surveyed law schools now offer AI courses, with 62 percent incorporating these classes starting in the first year of law school. Additionally, 83 percent of these institutions provide clinics, intensives, and other opportunities for students to engage with AI, often in collaboration with other departments such as engineering, computer science, and data science.

The survey highlighted the growing emphasis on AI education in legal studies. For instance, Arizona State University's Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law offers AI classes and certificate programs focusing on AI in legal operations, privacy, and ethics. Stacy Leeds, a professor at ASU Law, said, “Our students will have unparalleled access to explore the intersection of law and technology. This will position them for success in the rapidly changing legal landscape.”

AI course offerings vary significantly among law schools. Some institutions focus on the implications of AI technology on Big Tech and the First Amendment, while others provide explicit instruction on AI tools and their legal and societal impacts. AI is also incorporated into traditional legal writing, drafting, and analytics classes. The trend is expected to grow, with 85 percent of surveyed law schools considering curriculum changes to include more AI content.

Gary Marchant, a professor and faculty director of the Center for Law, Science and Innovation at ASU Law, emphasized the importance of AI proficiency for future legal professionals. “Law firms and other legal employers need young lawyers who are comfortable with using AI as it becomes increasingly important to the practice of law,” Marchant said.

Marchant predicted that successful lawyers will need to utilize AI in their practice within five years. “Many practicing lawyers don’t have the time or inclination to learn AI themselves. So legal employers will be relying on their new recruits to become the AI implementers in their firm,” Marchant added.

Despite the push for AI education, many law schools remain unsure about specific policies regarding AI usage, particularly in the admissions process. While encouraging students to learn about AI, most schools surveyed expressed discomfort with prospective students using AI during their application process. Additionally, 62 percent admitted to uncertainty on how to approach this issue.

This ambiguity extends beyond admissions policies. At Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, students are prohibited from using generative AI to create content for assignments unless deemed appropriate by instructors. This mixed approach reflects the broader uncertainty within legal education regarding the integration and regulation of AI.