US Law Schools Split on AI: Some Ban Laptops, Others Mandate New Tech Courses

US Law Schools Implement Divergent AI Policies

US law schools are navigating a fundamental shift in legal education as they grapple with how to integrate AI into their curricula. At least a dozen US law schools rolled out new or revised AI policies over the summer, with approaches ranging from strict device bans to mandatory AI courses1

1

. This wave of policy changes reflects the tension between preserving traditional legal training methods and preparing students for a profession increasingly dominated by AI tools. The moves come amid broader concerns in higher education about AI's impact on learning, with a Massachusetts Institute of Technology report warning that easy access to chatbot answers can induce "cognitive surrender"1

1

.

Device Restrictions and Analog Classrooms Emerge

The University of Georgia introduced an "analog classroom" policy in August featuring a default ban on devices during class, while simultaneously requiring students to take at least one AI-related technology course1

1

. Law dean Usha Rodrigues explained the laptop bans stemmed partly from incidents of students consulting AI during traditional cold-calling exercises. The Socratic method, she emphasized, focuses on thinking on the spot and evaluating colleagues' answers critically rather than obtaining correct answers2

2

. The University of Chicago Law School became the first institution to prohibit laptops and phones in required first-year classes in July, aiming to ensure students learn to think critically, strategically, and independently before using AI tools later in their education1

1

.

Berkeley Law Adopts Restrictive Approach

Berkeley Law unveiled a particularly restrictive AI policy in May that bars students from using AI to brainstorm paper topics, summarize legal rules for papers, correct grammatical mistakes, or identify repetitive passages1

1

. Despite offering multiple AI courses, the school's student-run AI at Berkeley Law club criticized the default rules as potentially conflicting with the institution's positioning as a technology leader. The AI student club argued that legal education should teach the distinction between outsourcing legal reasoning to AI and using AI as a tool within a legal workflow rather than avoiding it entirely2

2

. Professor Colleen Chien from Berkeley Law's AI Leadership Committee clarified that faculty can deviate from the default policy when it serves their teaching and learning goals, noting the policy serves as a conversation starter rather than a rigid endpoint1

1

.

Permissive Policies Allow Controlled AI Use

Columbia Law School released new AI rules in August permitting students to use AI for argument testing, soliciting criticism, exploring alternative articulations, and correcting spelling and grammar1

1

. However, the policy stipulates that written work must remain student-generated and reflect ideas, arguments, analysis, and expression that are products of the student's own intellectual creativity and judgment2

2

. The University of Michigan follows a middle-ground approach by allowing AI for brainstorming and researching papers while prohibiting students from using it to draft, edit, or revise their work2

2

.

Mandatory AI Instruction Gains Traction

Suffolk University Law School dean Andrew Perlman compiled an online database in August tracking AI policies from 180 law schools, revealing that at least 36 institutions now have some form of mandated AI instruction1

1

. Schools are requiring AI education through orientation programs, mandatory first-year courses, or standalone AI classes. Perlman observed an acceptance and expectation that AI is here to stay in the legal profession1

1

. University of Texas law dean Bobby Chesney noted during a recent webinar that law firms and employers now expect law school graduates to possess basic AI familiarity as firms race to incorporate AI in the legal profession1

1

.

Professional Stakes Drive Policy Decisions

The stakes for developing appropriate AI policies are particularly high for law schools because lawyers face professional and ethical obligations related to competency and confidentiality that impact how they use AI1

1

. Attorneys may defend clients in death penalty cases or represent corporations in billion-dollar litigation, making the balance between AI assistance and independent legal reasoning crucial2

2

. Student-run AI clubs have emerged at multiple law schools, reflecting concerns that the technology will be necessary for future careers as the legal profession undergoes rapid transformation1

1

. As schools continue refining their approaches, the challenge remains integrating AI into legal education while preserving the critical thinking skills fundamental to legal practice.