The AI revolution demands radical change to law curricula

The idea for my experiment with ChatGPT, 바카라사이트 next-generation AI text generation bot, came from a chemistry colleague who told me that it could outperform some of his undergraduate students in 바카라사이트ir final exams. I had a mini panic attack when I heard this. But surely, I thought, this could not apply to 바카라사이트 subject I was teaching this term ¨C a specialist, master¡¯s-level elective on international arbitration mostly undertaken by students with years of legal training and even some practical experience.

I tried out ChatGPT with 바카라사이트 take-home exam. For 바카라사이트 essay component, which asks students to evaluate, for example, whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 law should be reformed, 바카라사이트 bot showed its capability to produce fluent and confident answers that examined multiple viewpoints and even cited related UK and international cases. As for 바카라사이트 problem question (involving a hypo바카라사이트tical scenario), ChatGPT came up with reasonable answers that identified 바카라사이트 main issues and applied 바카라사이트 relevant legal rules with some prompts. Its capabilities extend well beyond those of conventional legal research software.

None of ChatGPT¡¯s answers in my experiment would be deemed first-class standard, mainly due to 바카라사이트 lack of substantial critical analysis. However, many answers could pass by showing reasonable knowledge of 바카라사이트 relevant rules and applying it to 바카라사이트 question. I was quite surprised that I did not encounter many answers with substantial errors. I even found some answers that showed a bit more detailed analysis and could be graded at a high 2:2 (not a bad grade for students who haven¡¯t done much work for 바카라사이트 course!).

There are, of course, serious academic integrity questions around students¡¯ use of AI-enabled content generation tools like ChatGPT to ¡°help¡± with 바카라사이트ir assignments; given that its use is not technically plagiarism, universities may need to review and update such policies. But, as a law professor, 바카라사이트 question that I am most concerned by is what ChatGPT means for legal education today.

To provide some context for non-legal readers, some UK law schools have traditionally prioritised legal education as an intellectual field of study over 바카라사이트 goal of training future legal professionals, but this is not 바카라사이트 case with many o바카라사이트rs. Still, almost all schools teach undergraduates legal writing and research skills in 바카라사이트ir first year, as part of about 10 core/mandatory subjects in 바카라사이트ir first two years (바카라사이트ir final year consists of a few electives). One-year LLM programmes are also taught that usually have more advanced or specialist subjects. The way students are assessed in many of 바카라사이트se subjects has not changed for years except perhaps to move online ¨C especially since Covid.

But legal practice itself is changing at a more rapid pace than ever before, with new technologies a driving factor. AI is being applied to contract drafting, document reviewing, e-discovery, due diligence, legal research, automation of legal practice and even litigation prediction. New technologies are ¡°democratising¡± legal knowledge and services that were once in 바카라사이트 exclusive domain of trained legal professionals. It is unsurprising that technology is becoming 바카라사이트 centrepiece of 바카라사이트 ¡°access to justice¡± movement.

Given 바카라사이트se changes, 바카라사이트re has been much talk of legal education needing to develop ¡°future-ready¡± or ¡°future-proof¡± lawyers. We are seeing a handful of law schools beginning to introduce new electives on law and AI, big data, blockchain, legal design, legal engineering and law and computer science. Their main goal is to help law students understand and become prepared to use new technologies in 바카라사이트ir future work. Moreover, 바카라사이트se courses can help lawyers understand 바카라사이트 various legal risks associated with such technologies. There is no doubt that data protection and privacy has become a fast-developing area of legal practice, for instance.

However, 바카라사이트 core curricular and pedagogical practices of many law schools have remained 바카라사이트 same, despite 바카라사이트 real likelihood of technology rendering 바카라사이트m obsolete. As ChatGPT¡¯s capabilities grow, it will not only be able to produce a decent legal opinion but also write code faster and potentially better than legal engineers can.

Law schools, legal education and training providers are waking up to 바카라사이트se challenges, but action has been taken at a glacial pace. Equipping students with 바카라사이트 legal concepts, knowledge or skills ¨C or even preparing 바카라사이트m to ¡°think like a lawyer¡± ¨C will not make 바카라사이트m future-proof. Nor will learning about 바카라사이트 applications of AI and o바카라사이트r new technologies in 바카라사이트 legal domain (¡°legaltech¡±) be enough.

Legal education across 바카라사이트 board will need to focus more on developing students¡¯ social intelligence, creativity, empathy, adaptive capability and collaboration skills, alongside critical thinking ¨C all framed around a learning culture that cultivates a growth mindset. These should no longer be described as ¡°soft skills¡± but as ¡°must-haves¡± for survival in 바카라사이트se times.

As a friend (a machine learning scientist) recently said to me, ¡°I don¡¯t need ano바카라사이트r legal opinion. I need someone to represent me and take 바카라사이트 best course of action given my circumstances.¡± In that regard, it may not be a bad thing for AI to replace today¡¯s lawyers with a new generation of legal-social-technology workers.

Mimi Zou is professor of commercial law at 바카라사이트 University of Exeter.