Before the Prompt: Building Legal Skills in the Age of AIAugust 31, 2026

In a bold move, as announced on July 9, beginning this fall, first-year law students at the University of Chicago are being banned from using any electronic devices in their core classes.  To some, this may seem like a move backwards, or a recapture of the “good old days.”  To others, it may be a first step to renewed teaching practices or an emphasis on the basics. 

In short, this policy acknowledges the dichotomy between the use of AI to become an attorney versus using AI as a practicing attorney.  The school is not contradicting the use of AI, but rather is sequencing its use to a time after students have learned some basic concepts of the law. 

The University explains that developing essential human skills comes first, to help students learn critical thinking without relying on AI.  The first-year students will be without laptops, cellphones and other devices for their basic classes.  Class notes will be taken in writing, and exams will be given in person, without access to the internet.  All law students at the University are also required to write a major research article, but will then meet with their professor face to face to answer questions about their submission.   This new strategy is entitled “Rethinking Legal Education in the AI Era.”  The law school’s goal is to have the law students think “with, without, and about AI.”  AI will be allowed in other classes and in 2^nd and 3^rd year curriculum.  For example, the law school will create AI modules for first year students, use AI tools in clinic-related work, and develop a new AI legal lab focused on when to use AI and when not to use AI in its legal research and writing program.

Perhaps this is simple logic:  you have to learn to “think like an attorney” before using tools such as AI for legal work on client matters. 

The school acknowledges that AI is quickly becoming built into everything we do.  Its new strategy for AI has three areas of focus:

1. Developing AI-resilient pedagogy and assessment;
2. Elevating the “essential human” skills that distinguish excellent lawyers; and
3. Teaching the responsible, effective, and ethical use of AI.

As explained by William Hubbard, chair of the Law School’s AI Committee, “The idea that AI creates shortcuts, saves time, and avoid effort; these are all things that could be very beneficial in the professional context where you want to maximize efficiency.  But they are very, very damaging in the educational context, when the whole point is to do things the hard way – because that’s how you learn.”  Dean Adam Chilton stated that the goal is to ensure that its law students learn the important and foundational concepts of the law, learn to think for themselves, and learn to think rigorously and creatively.

As most people likely agree, AI is a tool, and like all tools, knowledge and training in proper usage are critical to quality results.  For example, a person cannot pick up a garden tool or woodworking tool and expect a great finished product if they don’t know what is needed, what the problem or challenges may be, or how to operate the tool safely.  A great outcome is a function of great preparation.  You can’t have the former without the latter.  Becoming a respected, successful lawyer is no different.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has stated that AI has enormous potential for solving world problems, but we must proceed thoughtfully in view of the “significant risks” which AI presents.  The USPTO has embraced this technology and has developed guidelines for the use of AI by patent and trademark examiners and practitioners to enhance the quality and efficiency of the Office.  The USPTO seeks to maximize the benefits of AI but recognizes the importance of human activity to minimize risks.

Our law schools will continue to teach students critical thinking, including recognition of legal issues and problem-solving, as well as the need for judgment, sound advice, and ethical conduct.  AI does not replace these legal skills but may enhance and explore options, best practices, efficiency, and communications.  Thus, AI will not replace human factors such as legal reasoning, judgment, and empathy but will improve our client work product and relations.

Will this “experiment” by the Chicago Law School have a domino effect and be duplicated at other law schools?  Will there be a trickle-down effect on undergraduate colleges and universities, or even to high school education or younger students?  Time will tell. 

Kirk Hartung is a member of the Mechanical Patent Practice Group at McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC., an intellectual property boutique law firm in Iowa, specializing in all aspects of IP law.  For additional information please visit  www.ipmvs.com or contact Kirk directly via email at kirk.hartung@ipmvs.com.