Tag Archives: Legal Education

Integrating AI Tools Into Law School Teaching

Posted on by
Reply

Robert MacKenzie and I have an article in Bloomberg Law, Law Schools Should Teach How to Integrate AI Tools Into Practice. It reads,

Now that artificial intelligence tools for lawyers are widely available, we decided to integrate them for a semester in our Entrepreneurship Clinic. We have some important takeaways for legal education in general and the transactional practice of law in particular.

First, employers and educators need to account for law students who already are using AI tools in their legal work and guide new lawyers about how to use such tools appropriately.

Second, different AI products lead to wildly different results. Just demonstrating this to law students is very valuable, as it dispels the notion that AI responses can replace their independent judgment.

Third, AI’s greatest value may be in refining legal judgment for lawyers in ways that can help new and experienced lawyers alike.

Legal AI Prep

As we were planning our syllabus over the summer, we provided formal training in AI tools designed for lawyers. A librarian provided us an overview of products from Bloomberg Law, Lexis, and Westlaw early in the semester.

Before the training, we asked students how they were using AI in the legal work. Their responses ranged from “not at all” to “I start all of my case law research on ChatGPT.”

We were confident that our students would be better off operating somewhere between those extremes. Over the semester, we demonstrated how AI could enhance the speed and quality of legal work, as well as the dangers of outsourcing research and judgment to an AI tool.

AI Tool Differences

Perhaps the training’s most valuable takeaway was that each tool had access to different databases of materials and had different constraints. We designed simulations that required groups of students to complete the same transactional tasks (drafting, researching, benchmarking market terms, and crafting effective client emails) using various AI tools.

In one exercise, students acted as counsel to a small business owner. The “client” emailed them asking about standard-form contracts relevant to their industry and what pricing mechanics such contracts use.

For the research stage of the task, all teams located a standard-form construction contract, but only half of them found the industry-accepted standard form that we contemplated. The others located this form later by modifying their search approach. This helped to demonstrate some limitations of AI tools.

For the client communication stage, some teams failed to answer the “client’s” questions. This isn’t something the AI tool could address on its own, and it reminded students to constantly refocus on the big picture in addition to individual tasks.

We found that AI tools built on widely available AI platforms such as ChatGPT produced the most responsive outputs and were most forgiving of haphazard prompting. But certain specialized legal AI tools often failed to answer the prompt.

This is a double-edged sword. Although the generally available tools were more likely to generate an answer, they also were more prone to providing unreliable outputs. By contrast, the specialized tools hallucinated much less frequently but regularly stopped short of fulfilling a request if it required work beyond their guardrails.

Delegating Work

Our final takeaway was that AI was surprisingly good at issue-spotting and double-checking a lawyer’s work product. These uses can help both new and experienced lawyers.

We used the idea of delegation to make this point to our students. AI is fast, adaptable, and always available, so it’s a great resource. But you should only delegate work to it when you can verify its output.

In one exercise, students had to issue-spot risks and approaches after a “client” described a business opportunity. Students brainstormed in small groups. There was a lot of overlap, but some groups thought of items that others had not. We added the items to a collective list, relying on our years of practice to guide the students through gaps that remained.

Once we had a strong collective list of items, a team asked an AI product to issue-spot the same scenario. It generated most of the items in our list, some that weren’t relevant, and—most importantly—a couple that no one had raised.

This was a valuable lesson: AI had something to add to our analysis, but we had to exercise independent judgment to determine whether its contributions merited further thought.

Important Takeaways

We asked students for feedback on our use of AI throughout the semester. The most valuable feedback was that they wanted to develop their own legal judgment and learn how and why certain tasks are completed before relying on AI.

This echoes the transition from book-based legal research to electronic legal research. There was some value in searching the law reports in the library, but electronic legal research won out because it was so much more efficient. Yet even with this enhanced efficiency, a responsible lawyer must understand how to build a strong research plan and actually read the cases they cite.

In the clinic, our goal is student learning. It was for this reason that we liked to deploy the AI tools at the end of our exercises: You do the work and then interrogate it with the AI tools of your choice.

Such an approach ensures law students get the benefit of struggling through first repetitions of new tasks while allowing them to generate superior work product with fewer drafts. This process requires discipline. Legal education and legal employers need to clarify the line between AI as a tool versus AI as a crutch.

We learned a lot about how AI tools can help law students develop into good lawyers. As those tools are integrated into legal practice, lawyers of all experience levels should take a self-conscious approach to using them.

The Changing Architecture of Real Estate Law Education

Posted on by

Washburn Professor Andrea J. Boyack

The Association of American Law School Section on Real Estate Transactions and the Section on Academic Support are doing a call for Statements of Interest for those interested in presenting at an AALS panel meeting in January of next year. Panelists should be prepared to answer some or all of the following questions:

What real property law courses should law schools be teaching?

Who should be teaching these courses?

How should the courses be taught?

The Section on Real Estate Transactions and the Section on Academic Support seek to explore these questions and related issues at their joint online session during the 2021 AALS Annual Meeting, The Changing Architecture of Approaches to Legal Education: Real Estate Transactions as a Case Study.

Members of the legal academic community are invited to submit statements of interest in joining the panel of presenters who will discuss the following in the context of real property law and related courses (mortgage finance, securitization, commercial leasing, housing law, real estate development, etc.):

  • Law schools’ curricular choices
  • Course content and design
  • Teaching and pedagogy application.

As explained more in the “Background” section below, the Sections are specifically looking to highlight issues related to course offerings, curricular design, and teaching methodologies that can better prepare students for modern practice and ensure student achievement of course objectives. Statements of interest (including a description/summary of your proposed presentation) should be emailed to Andrea Boyack at andrea.boyack@washburn.edu by September 17, 2020.

There is no formal paper requirement associated with participation on the panel.

**Note that the AALS Annual Meeting in January 2021 will be held in a completely digital format, and individual registration fees will not be charged for participation in/attendance at the Annual Meeting.**

Background/Program Overview:

In the past decade, legal education has experienced a number of body blows from which it still struggles to recover. In 2007, Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law (more commonly known as the “Carnegie Report”) criticized the academy for insufficiently preparing students for legal practice. In the aftermath of the 2008 Financial Crisis and global recession, many attorneys (especially from Big Law) were laid off and new graduates faced fewer and fewer job prospects. Mainstream and social media spotlighted lawyer and law student discontent, worries about sustainability of legal careers and the high cost of legal education, schools skewing data to try to game US News rankings, and the growing number of for-profit institutions. Law firms and their clients started exhibiting an increasing hesitancy with respect to hiring and training inexperienced attorneys. Law school admission rates tumbled as college graduates changed their opinions about the value of a legal education, as the ABA began making new demands of law schools pertaining to skills training and assessments. The practice of law, in the meantime, has changed dramatically, with automation, internet resources, and contract attorneys (or non-attorneys) taking the place performing tasks lawyers once controlled. Furthermore, schools have struggled to adapt to different expectations of the Millennial and Gen-Z generations of law students. Then, in March 2020, legal academia and law practice suddenly shifted to operating (temporarily?), primarily in the digital/virtual realm. The world has changed over the past 15 years, the practice of law has changed, and law schools struggle to adapt quickly enough to stay relevant and valuable.

The evolving demands and expectations for law schools are not just issues to be addressed by deans and administrators. Nor can the task of preparing new lawyers be allocated exclusively to clinicians and adjunct instructors of specialized “skills” classes. Doctrinal professors may want to also change their approach in the classroom in response to new industry demands for practice competencies and evolving attorney roles in an ever-changing marketplace, but have our pedagogical approaches adequately adapted to this new world? And how has law schools’ increasing reliance on adjunct professors impacted the students’ experience and preparation for the bar and beyond? In short: In what ways do we need to rethink what we teach and how we teach it in order to remain optimally relevant to tomorrow’s lawyers.

Eligibility:

Per AALS rules, faculty at fee-paid law schools, foreign faculty, adjunct and visiting faculty (without a full-time position at an AALS member law school), graduate students, fellows, and non-law school faculty are not eligible to submit a statement of interest.