7 ms·

Rethinking legal education in the AI era

154 points by jjwiseman 2mo ago

wxw 2mo ago
I think this plan is really quite well-balanced and sane. Also kudos to UChicago Law School for including an actual implementation plan here, not just vague thoughts. Some bits I found interesting: [For required courses in year 1] > Across all 1L sections, we will prohibit the use of electronic devices such as laptops, tablets, and phones in the classroom. > Additionally, examinations will be in-class without access to the internet, electronic files, or apps. And most of all, we will continue our longstanding tradition of emphasizing the Socratic Method as part of these courses. [For Legal Research & Writing year 1] > Throughout the year, students will write without AI, while also using AI for research, revision, iterating on drafts, and preparation for oral argument. Students and their instructors will review together both their writing and their use of AI. [Electives] > For these courses, the use of the Socratic Method, no-device policies, and in-class, no-access exams will remain, but as default rules rather than required policies. > In all elective courses, we will encourage instructors to experiment with pedagogy. [Upper level writing] > We will be adding one additional requirement, which is that all students will be required to engage in an oral discussion of their SRP with their supervising professor, in an in-person setting.
- mag7269 2mo ago
  All nice and all, but their grads will be wrecked by a street-wise guy with AI glasses (and eventually an implanted chip). There’s no competition in a machines vs humans match. It’s over. Of course these elite centers of knowledge want to keep the status quo, they base their entire existence on gate-keeping useful shit from the riff-raff. Well, fuck them.
  - nkrisc 2mo ago
    Why would anyone hire an implanted chip that requires life support instead of just using the AI without the human middleman?
    - neffy 2mo ago
      Because if you can just use AI, Law becomes accessible to both the rich and the poor.
  - j4yav 2mo ago
    A street wise moron used as a sort of meat puppet to carry a computer around that answers questions for him? What does that even mean practically? Won’t the graduates who learned how to think also have access, but then also be able to think for themselves too?
    - rglullis 2mo ago
      I think the real question here is: if you are smart and can find the resources to "learn how to think", and if a "smart guy with access to AI tools" can perform as well as any other trained lawyer, then what is the point of going to a competitive school in the first place?
      - adityamwagh 2mo ago
        You can't become "smart" just like that and "learn to think". It takes years od dedicated effort to reach that stage. Getting into a competitive school takes just that - years of dedicated effort. > "smart guy with access to AI tools" can perform as well as any other trained lawyer You are seriously understating the ability of a trained lawyer and overstating the ability AI tools.
        rglullis 2mo ago
        No, I am not saying that a smart person will outperform a trained lawyer because of the AI tools. What I am saying is that going to schools no longer is the only way for smart people to be able to do the job of a lawyer.
        rayiner 2mo ago
        Going to school was never the only way for smart people to be able to do the job of a lawyer. Law is like consulting and finance in that the “school” part is mostly filtering and socialization and signaling. The actual education is maybe like 1 year of the three years people spend in law school.
- w10-1 2mo ago
  These are the right bits to call out. But the effect is to make success more dependent on networks. (If they are using AI as an excuse to make networks more relevant than skills, it relieves competitive pressure.) First, a main draw of law journals is the filing cabinet of past exams as remembered by past students, available only to journal members i.e., friends of connected people. Reducing one's ability to remember what was in a lecture only increases the advantage insiders have. Second, the "Socratic" Method for teaching law is nothing like it is in philosophy; it's more of a weird combination of hide-the-ball and distraction that again ensures people who can see through the clouds are using out-of-band information, and share it only with those they seek to enlist or join. > all students will be required to engage in an oral discussion of their SRP with their supervising professor, in an in-person setting I'm surprised anyone could get through otherwise. When did it become legitimate to dump your paper and not answer for it?
  - jrm4 2mo ago
    So, I graduated from law school 20 years ago, and -- given even the internet THEN, like, pdfs over mail -- that law journal filing cabinet thing was actually already dying; I had more than enough past history of outlines and stuff. That all being said, I would be entirely unsurprised if the "mythology" of "YES the journals have the secret fancy sauce that no one else can get" lived on. Also -- and I don't necessarily want to denigrate law school professors, it's another thing that's just gone on so long that "this is how we do it" -- yes, the law School "Socratic method" (at worst) is an effective form of possible professor laziness; they can just "ask questions about the cases" and not really teach. Related to how law school "textbooks" aren't textbooks. They're literally just a bunch of cases slapped together with a tiny bit of commentary (unless that's maybe changed too, I hope?) Again, not all professors, you CAN still teach very well under this framework. -- but it is an out for those fancy people who's forte isn't teaching.
  - rayiner 2mo ago
    > Second, the "Socratic" Method for teaching law is nothing like it is in philosophy; it's more of a weird combination of hide-the-ball and distraction that again ensures people who can see through the clouds are using out-of-band information, and share it only with those they seek to enlist How so? In my view, the socratic method is one of the few useful parts of law school. Most people, even quite smart people, think in a fuzzy way. Their ideas can seem superficially compelling in written form, but often fall apart when you start questioning their assumptions and chain of logical reasoning. The biggest problem is that most law schools don’t use socratic method, because it’s a lot of work for teachers. Just cold calling a student and asking them to explain what happened in a case isn’t socratic method.
AndrewKemendo 2mo ago
This is exactly why all these people talking about a “bubble” I think are misguided. Are expectations way too high in the near term for tech companies and all of the crap that they’re talking? 100% totally agree. But this is “just another an AI cycle” and if you’re a practitioner it does look different than the previous ones. However this kind of statement was not released for crypto, or for the Internet. Those were massively impactful technologies. What you are actively seeing happening now are institutions saying “we have to change the way that we practice” “the way that we did business before is no longer as applicable as it’s going to be changing very rapidly in the future and we’re going to have to deal with that.” That is not coming from investors or technology companies. That is coming from people who are utilizing this stuff and being impacted by it So it is absolutely the case that there’s going to be some kind of financial changes but just like every other AI cycle we are left with a aggressively more capable technology that is more pervasive. Everybody needs to be taking that seriously.
- rayiner 2mo ago
  AI is a real thing and it's the most significant development in the legal sector since the Internet. Saturday morning, I spent a couple of hours getting my arms around some discovery, which before would've taken me the whole day. Even if it never gets any better it's a huge step forward. It's not only going to change legal education, it's going to change what the pipeline looks like in law firms. Similarly to the changes I expect to see in any kind of white collar job where AI replaces a lot of the data analysis/data transformation work, leaving people to do more human interaction.
  - vouaobrasil 2mo ago
    Indeed - it helps people become much more efficient. When it comes to law, that includes criminals as well. Whatever gains in efficiency happen on one side, they happen on the other too. Yes, everyone loves to say how they coded a cool side project in a day instead of a week, but what of the situation where AI is placed in a situation with two sides going against each other. The same old fight, but with better weapons.
  - 2mo ago
JSR_FDED 2mo ago
I think more universities will follow. Every prof I speak to has noticed shorter attention spans, low effort LLM writing, and inability to assess competence.
agentprose 2mo ago
I recent beat an actual lawyer as a pro se plaintiff in a civil suit. It was all codex and claude, using the cli agents to write the "import docx" scripts that wrote all the filings, and scripts to assemble exhibits. I don't know how long the bars will be able to hold onto their monopoly powers when confronted with LLMs that are measurably superior.
- slopinthebag 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - sublinear 2mo ago
    [flagged]
  - agentprose 2mo ago
    I'm sorry that I created a new account to not doxx myself. The number of bits of entropy of court cases in the US, in which a pro se plaintiff won, and has obviously written-by-codex legal filings, is not one I would sacrifice to identify my main account.
- bryanrasmussen 2mo ago
  I've seen lawyers lose to non-lawyers who didn't use all that, just because the lawyers didn't do their work, thinking, no doubt, "I'm a lawyer I will just win", at any rate there is a well known aphorism that a lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client. finally, was this thing you beat the actual lawyer at in their specific specialty, since lawyers are often focused on particular aspects of the law?
  - agentprose 2mo ago
    It was a condominium law specialized attorney representing a condominium association on a matter of condominium law.
  - lelanthran 2mo ago
    > at any rate there is a well known aphorism that a lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client. IME, many lawyers who represent others also have fools for clients.
nttylock 2mo ago
[flagged]
kozzion 2mo ago
As a CTO of an Ai first law firm I would like to add that most human lawyers are absolutely terrible. We review 100s of old contracts every week and most of them have 10-20 serious drafting errors on them. The most common ones are of the order of defining the same concept like 'a working day' in various conflicting ways without every specifying when which of the conflicting definitions should be used. Lawyers still have something to add to process but for every time they catch AI out on them, the machine is usually already 10-1 ahead.
- ButlerianJihad 2mo ago
  I have the impression that most law firms consume and produce documentation by means of a cadre of paralegals who are minimally trained, minimally experienced, and maximally stressed by the pressure of deadlines and case loads. These paralegals are probably working to read hundreds of pages of legal filings and make sense out of them, and on the other end, they are working to produce as much documentation as possible and that's going to be by cut-and-paste assembly. So no, they are not going to understand stuff very well, and no, their output is not really going to be consistent or intelligible. But the managing attorneys depend on these paralegals to get anything done, just like Congresspeople rely on their staffers to actually read bills and draft legislation. At the end of the day, I think these paralegals have been quite weak links, and nearly nobody will notice a difference in quality when it's all handed over to LLMs. But the paralegals will lose their jobs, and probably have nothing better to do than purchase angle grinders and cut down Flock camera poles, or crown the front hood of Waymos with a traffic pylon.
  - nradov 2mo ago
    It's really the junior associates doing most of that grunt work. Paralegals in most firms have more limited responsibilities. Some work has already been handed over to LLMs but the job market for graduates of first-tier law schools remains strong.
- bonzini 2mo ago
  But the real question is 1) whether other human lawyers would catch the error 2) in how much time 3) which of the errors introduced by AI vs. human would have bigger consequences. On 1 and 2 the answers are very likely to be "yes" and "it would take humans more time", but the question that really matters is 3.
shevy-java 2mo ago
> our graduates will be expected to be prepared to use them in legal practice. But then why do I need a lawyer? I do watch Travis's videos. Ever since he integrated AI, the video quality dropped immensely and it became really stupid, compared to his older videos. AI degraded the quality and discussions he used to have with law enforcement too, it's quite sad actually. https://www.youtube.com/@Exchange_IDs/videos https://www.youtube.com/@Exchange_IDs/videos
keiferski 2mo ago
It’s interesting to think that the “public speaking skills” aspect of some legal jobs will probably continue to be AI-proof for the indefinite future. No one is going to present ChatGPT on an iPad as their defense attorney. On the other hand, the paperwork-first side of law is probably in for a tough future. Especially if your clients are not big corporations or rich celebrities. In general I think my advice to young people is: focus on social skills, public speaking, etc. These are not going to be replaced by robots in your lifetime.
- nradov 2mo ago
  Even small corporations have a huge need for paperwork in terms of contract negotiation and redlining agreements. Some of this can be partially automated but the real value an experienced attorney brings is in knowing how those issues fit into the larger business context, and deciding what to press on or concede.
- dgellow 2mo ago
  > No one is going to present ChatGPT on an iPad as their defense attorney. That already happened! https://youtu.be/MkmfZPt-gaw?si=gk1k3sGsFq9npp0X https://youtu.be/MkmfZPt-gaw?si=gk1k3sGsFq9npp0X
avaer 2mo ago
This is a more reasoned take than most reactions to AI. But nobody wants to consider the possibility that maybe we won't actually need what was traditionally called lawyers in the mid/near term future; certainly before the new grad's careers are up. I would never expect Harvard Law school to admit this, their hands are tied by many interests, but IMO they still aren't being pragmatic enough to evolve. I would make the courses 50% AI based immediately, the other 50% being based on validating and applying the AI's work with traditional rigorous work. Anyone who rejects this should drop out, because they won't have a career anyway. And if Harvard Law disagrees then they can find out how meaningful their degrees are going to be in 10 years.
Kaibeezy 2mo ago
The posted article is about law school, but the comments are focusing on practice. These overlap but are not the same. “Lawyer” is one of many possible career paths. Law graduates are uniquely qualified as premium law-aware generalists. In my opinion, there is no better education to prepare for future business uncertainty.
benj111 2mo ago
Problem is. The law isn't actually what is written. Lawyers aren't truthful or honest. Being a lawyer is just getting a licence to lie in court, and for some reason the judge takes it seriously. Lawyers are going to use ai, because it's easy. The only time they won't is when the AI won't come up with a plausible enough excuse. The lawyer will always have a job, because a non lawyer using the same arguments will be ignored. So these are rules to maintain the appearance that the system has integrity. And that's the annoying thing. They know what integrity and justice and fairness look like, just as the rest of the justice system does, but they ignore it all. At this point, it would be preferable for both sides to put their argument to an AI and let the AI decide what is fair. Wouldn't be any worse than judges who were themselves lawyers looking after their own. Sorry for the rant, I've had experience of the 'justice' system.
lebuffon 2mo ago
A related question for me is to ask when will lawmakers begin using AI to better integrate new law into the existing framework?
doadfda 2mo ago
[dead]
3ff3 2mo ago
[flagged]

154 points by jjwiseman 2mo ago

wxw 2mo ago

I think this plan is really quite well-balanced and sane. Also kudos to UChicago Law School for including an actual implementation plan here, not just vague thoughts. Some bits I found interesting: [For required courses in year 1] > Across all 1L sections, we will prohibit the use of electronic devices such as laptops, tablets, and phones in the classroom. > Additionally, examinations will be in-class without access to the internet, electronic files, or apps. And most of all, we will continue our longstanding tradition of emphasizing the Socratic Method as part of these courses. [For Legal Research & Writing year 1] > Throughout the year, students will write without AI, while also using AI for research, revision, iterating on drafts, and preparation for oral argument. Students and their instructors will review together both their writing and their use of AI. [Electives] > For these courses, the use of the Socratic Method, no-device policies, and in-class, no-access exams will remain, but as default rules rather than required policies. > In all elective courses, we will encourage instructors to experiment with pedagogy. [Upper level writing] > We will be adding one additional requirement, which is that all students will be required to engage in an oral discussion of their SRP with their supervising professor, in an in-person setting.

mag7269 2mo ago
All nice and all, but their grads will be wrecked by a street-wise guy with AI glasses (and eventually an implanted chip). There’s no competition in a machines vs humans match. It’s over. Of course these elite centers of knowledge want to keep the status quo, they base their entire existence on gate-keeping useful shit from the riff-raff. Well, fuck them.
- nkrisc 2mo ago
  Why would anyone hire an implanted chip that requires life support instead of just using the AI without the human middleman?
  - neffy 2mo ago
    Because if you can just use AI, Law becomes accessible to both the rich and the poor.
- j4yav 2mo ago
  A street wise moron used as a sort of meat puppet to carry a computer around that answers questions for him? What does that even mean practically? Won’t the graduates who learned how to think also have access, but then also be able to think for themselves too?
  - rglullis 2mo ago
    I think the real question here is: if you are smart and can find the resources to "learn how to think", and if a "smart guy with access to AI tools" can perform as well as any other trained lawyer, then what is the point of going to a competitive school in the first place?
    - adityamwagh 2mo ago
      You can't become "smart" just like that and "learn to think". It takes years od dedicated effort to reach that stage. Getting into a competitive school takes just that - years of dedicated effort. > "smart guy with access to AI tools" can perform as well as any other trained lawyer You are seriously understating the ability of a trained lawyer and overstating the ability AI tools.
      - rglullis 2mo ago
        No, I am not saying that a smart person will outperform a trained lawyer because of the AI tools. What I am saying is that going to schools no longer is the only way for smart people to be able to do the job of a lawyer.
        rayiner 2mo ago
        Going to school was never the only way for smart people to be able to do the job of a lawyer. Law is like consulting and finance in that the “school” part is mostly filtering and socialization and signaling. The actual education is maybe like 1 year of the three years people spend in law school.
w10-1 2mo ago
These are the right bits to call out. But the effect is to make success more dependent on networks. (If they are using AI as an excuse to make networks more relevant than skills, it relieves competitive pressure.) First, a main draw of law journals is the filing cabinet of past exams as remembered by past students, available only to journal members i.e., friends of connected people. Reducing one's ability to remember what was in a lecture only increases the advantage insiders have. Second, the "Socratic" Method for teaching law is nothing like it is in philosophy; it's more of a weird combination of hide-the-ball and distraction that again ensures people who can see through the clouds are using out-of-band information, and share it only with those they seek to enlist or join. > all students will be required to engage in an oral discussion of their SRP with their supervising professor, in an in-person setting I'm surprised anyone could get through otherwise. When did it become legitimate to dump your paper and not answer for it?
- jrm4 2mo ago
  So, I graduated from law school 20 years ago, and -- given even the internet THEN, like, pdfs over mail -- that law journal filing cabinet thing was actually already dying; I had more than enough past history of outlines and stuff. That all being said, I would be entirely unsurprised if the "mythology" of "YES the journals have the secret fancy sauce that no one else can get" lived on. Also -- and I don't necessarily want to denigrate law school professors, it's another thing that's just gone on so long that "this is how we do it" -- yes, the law School "Socratic method" (at worst) is an effective form of possible professor laziness; they can just "ask questions about the cases" and not really teach. Related to how law school "textbooks" aren't textbooks. They're literally just a bunch of cases slapped together with a tiny bit of commentary (unless that's maybe changed too, I hope?) Again, not all professors, you CAN still teach very well under this framework. -- but it is an out for those fancy people who's forte isn't teaching.
- rayiner 2mo ago
  > Second, the "Socratic" Method for teaching law is nothing like it is in philosophy; it's more of a weird combination of hide-the-ball and distraction that again ensures people who can see through the clouds are using out-of-band information, and share it only with those they seek to enlist How so? In my view, the socratic method is one of the few useful parts of law school. Most people, even quite smart people, think in a fuzzy way. Their ideas can seem superficially compelling in written form, but often fall apart when you start questioning their assumptions and chain of logical reasoning. The biggest problem is that most law schools don’t use socratic method, because it’s a lot of work for teachers. Just cold calling a student and asking them to explain what happened in a case isn’t socratic method.

AndrewKemendo 2mo ago

This is exactly why all these people talking about a “bubble” I think are misguided. Are expectations way too high in the near term for tech companies and all of the crap that they’re talking? 100% totally agree. But this is “just another an AI cycle” and if you’re a practitioner it does look different than the previous ones. However this kind of statement was not released for crypto, or for the Internet. Those were massively impactful technologies. What you are actively seeing happening now are institutions saying “we have to change the way that we practice” “the way that we did business before is no longer as applicable as it’s going to be changing very rapidly in the future and we’re going to have to deal with that.” That is not coming from investors or technology companies. That is coming from people who are utilizing this stuff and being impacted by it So it is absolutely the case that there’s going to be some kind of financial changes but just like every other AI cycle we are left with a aggressively more capable technology that is more pervasive. Everybody needs to be taking that seriously.

rayiner 2mo ago
AI is a real thing and it's the most significant development in the legal sector since the Internet. Saturday morning, I spent a couple of hours getting my arms around some discovery, which before would've taken me the whole day. Even if it never gets any better it's a huge step forward. It's not only going to change legal education, it's going to change what the pipeline looks like in law firms. Similarly to the changes I expect to see in any kind of white collar job where AI replaces a lot of the data analysis/data transformation work, leaving people to do more human interaction.
- vouaobrasil 2mo ago
  Indeed - it helps people become much more efficient. When it comes to law, that includes criminals as well. Whatever gains in efficiency happen on one side, they happen on the other too. Yes, everyone loves to say how they coded a cool side project in a day instead of a week, but what of the situation where AI is placed in a situation with two sides going against each other. The same old fight, but with better weapons.
- 2mo ago

JSR_FDED 2mo ago

I think more universities will follow. Every prof I speak to has noticed shorter attention spans, low effort LLM writing, and inability to assess competence.

agentprose 2mo ago

I recent beat an actual lawyer as a pro se plaintiff in a civil suit. It was all codex and claude, using the cli agents to write the "import docx" scripts that wrote all the filings, and scripts to assemble exhibits. I don't know how long the bars will be able to hold onto their monopoly powers when confronted with LLMs that are measurably superior.

slopinthebag 2mo ago
[flagged]
- sublinear 2mo ago
  [flagged]
- agentprose 2mo ago
  I'm sorry that I created a new account to not doxx myself. The number of bits of entropy of court cases in the US, in which a pro se plaintiff won, and has obviously written-by-codex legal filings, is not one I would sacrifice to identify my main account.
bryanrasmussen 2mo ago
I've seen lawyers lose to non-lawyers who didn't use all that, just because the lawyers didn't do their work, thinking, no doubt, "I'm a lawyer I will just win", at any rate there is a well known aphorism that a lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client. finally, was this thing you beat the actual lawyer at in their specific specialty, since lawyers are often focused on particular aspects of the law?
- agentprose 2mo ago
  It was a condominium law specialized attorney representing a condominium association on a matter of condominium law.
- lelanthran 2mo ago
  > at any rate there is a well known aphorism that a lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client. IME, many lawyers who represent others also have fools for clients.

nttylock 2mo ago

[flagged]

kozzion 2mo ago

As a CTO of an Ai first law firm I would like to add that most human lawyers are absolutely terrible. We review 100s of old contracts every week and most of them have 10-20 serious drafting errors on them. The most common ones are of the order of defining the same concept like 'a working day' in various conflicting ways without every specifying when which of the conflicting definitions should be used. Lawyers still have something to add to process but for every time they catch AI out on them, the machine is usually already 10-1 ahead.

ButlerianJihad 2mo ago
I have the impression that most law firms consume and produce documentation by means of a cadre of paralegals who are minimally trained, minimally experienced, and maximally stressed by the pressure of deadlines and case loads. These paralegals are probably working to read hundreds of pages of legal filings and make sense out of them, and on the other end, they are working to produce as much documentation as possible and that's going to be by cut-and-paste assembly. So no, they are not going to understand stuff very well, and no, their output is not really going to be consistent or intelligible. But the managing attorneys depend on these paralegals to get anything done, just like Congresspeople rely on their staffers to actually read bills and draft legislation. At the end of the day, I think these paralegals have been quite weak links, and nearly nobody will notice a difference in quality when it's all handed over to LLMs. But the paralegals will lose their jobs, and probably have nothing better to do than purchase angle grinders and cut down Flock camera poles, or crown the front hood of Waymos with a traffic pylon.
- nradov 2mo ago
  It's really the junior associates doing most of that grunt work. Paralegals in most firms have more limited responsibilities. Some work has already been handed over to LLMs but the job market for graduates of first-tier law schools remains strong.
bonzini 2mo ago
But the real question is 1) whether other human lawyers would catch the error 2) in how much time 3) which of the errors introduced by AI vs. human would have bigger consequences. On 1 and 2 the answers are very likely to be "yes" and "it would take humans more time", but the question that really matters is 3.

shevy-java 2mo ago

> our graduates will be expected to be prepared to use them in legal practice. But then why do I need a lawyer? I do watch Travis's videos. Ever since he integrated AI, the video quality dropped immensely and it became really stupid, compared to his older videos. AI degraded the quality and discussions he used to have with law enforcement too, it's quite sad actually. https://www.youtube.com/@Exchange_IDs/videos https://www.youtube.com/@Exchange_IDs/videos

keiferski 2mo ago

It’s interesting to think that the “public speaking skills” aspect of some legal jobs will probably continue to be AI-proof for the indefinite future. No one is going to present ChatGPT on an iPad as their defense attorney. On the other hand, the paperwork-first side of law is probably in for a tough future. Especially if your clients are not big corporations or rich celebrities. In general I think my advice to young people is: focus on social skills, public speaking, etc. These are not going to be replaced by robots in your lifetime.

nradov 2mo ago
Even small corporations have a huge need for paperwork in terms of contract negotiation and redlining agreements. Some of this can be partially automated but the real value an experienced attorney brings is in knowing how those issues fit into the larger business context, and deciding what to press on or concede.
dgellow 2mo ago
> No one is going to present ChatGPT on an iPad as their defense attorney. That already happened! https://youtu.be/MkmfZPt-gaw?si=gk1k3sGsFq9npp0X https://youtu.be/MkmfZPt-gaw?si=gk1k3sGsFq9npp0X

avaer 2mo ago

This is a more reasoned take than most reactions to AI. But nobody wants to consider the possibility that maybe we won't actually need what was traditionally called lawyers in the mid/near term future; certainly before the new grad's careers are up. I would never expect Harvard Law school to admit this, their hands are tied by many interests, but IMO they still aren't being pragmatic enough to evolve. I would make the courses 50% AI based immediately, the other 50% being based on validating and applying the AI's work with traditional rigorous work. Anyone who rejects this should drop out, because they won't have a career anyway. And if Harvard Law disagrees then they can find out how meaningful their degrees are going to be in 10 years.

Kaibeezy 2mo ago

The posted article is about law school, but the comments are focusing on practice. These overlap but are not the same. “Lawyer” is one of many possible career paths. Law graduates are uniquely qualified as premium law-aware generalists. In my opinion, there is no better education to prepare for future business uncertainty.

benj111 2mo ago

Problem is. The law isn't actually what is written. Lawyers aren't truthful or honest. Being a lawyer is just getting a licence to lie in court, and for some reason the judge takes it seriously. Lawyers are going to use ai, because it's easy. The only time they won't is when the AI won't come up with a plausible enough excuse. The lawyer will always have a job, because a non lawyer using the same arguments will be ignored. So these are rules to maintain the appearance that the system has integrity. And that's the annoying thing. They know what integrity and justice and fairness look like, just as the rest of the justice system does, but they ignore it all. At this point, it would be preferable for both sides to put their argument to an AI and let the AI decide what is fair. Wouldn't be any worse than judges who were themselves lawyers looking after their own. Sorry for the rant, I've had experience of the 'justice' system.

lebuffon 2mo ago

A related question for me is to ask when will lawmakers begin using AI to better integrate new law into the existing framework?

doadfda 2mo ago

[dead]

3ff3 2mo ago

[flagged]