(December 22, 2023) - 2023 saw extraordinary growth in artificial intelligence, with its use becoming increasingly widespread across industries. With that growth, questions have arisen about AI's benefits, threats and limitations in the workforce and academic settings.

Thomson Reuters asked Wake Forest University School of Law professor of practice in technology Raina Haque to discuss how law schools are using and addressing AI in the classroom and what they are teaching students about the use of the evolving technology in the legal profession.

Westlaw Today: How is artificial intelligence used in law school classrooms? Is it considered cheating to use AI for exams and/or papers? Do Wake Forest and, to your knowledge, other law schools have written policies on the use of AI for student work?

Raina Haque: Artificial intelligence has found its way into law school classrooms in various capacities. While AI can encompass a broad spectrum of applications, the focus here is on generative AI, which has gained significant attention recently. In my experience at Wake Forest Law School, I have integrated generative AI to enhance teaching and learning. For instance, I've used AI to brainstorm ideas, foster classroom debates and activities, and even generate visual aids for lectures. Lately, we began experimenting with retrieval-augmented generative AI engines designed specifically for legal professionals, which have shown promise in streamlining legal research and document drafting.

Regarding the use of generative AI in student work, policies may vary between institutions. At Wake Forest Law School, individual professors typically establish their own policies for each course. While there are uniform rules in some areas, such as legal writing programs, the broader application of AI in law school education is an evolving landscape, and institutions are actively exploring the best practices and ethical considerations.

WT: How do you think AI has changed the legal profession? Are students being instructed on the proper use and risks of AI once they enter the workforce?

RH: AI is in the early stages of transforming the legal profession. In my discussions with legal practitioners across the country, it's evident that many attorneys have yet to explore generative AI systems. However, there have been instances where legal professionals inadvertently submitted documents with AI-generated, inaccurate citations, highlighting the need for greater understanding and oversight.

The incorporation of AI education into traditional law school curricula is still evolving. Responsibility often falls on professors teaching legal writing, legal technology, research or professional responsibility courses. At Wake Forest Law School, we have emphasized educating students on crucial aspects like data security, client confidentiality, algorithmic bias and citation hallucinations. We've discussed the relevant model rules of professional conduct. It's imperative for students to comprehend the technical infrastructure of cloud computing to grasp the potential risks posed by generative AI systems.

At Wake Forest Law, I teach a popular course that focuses on data reasoning and AI development and regulation — a subject matter that is particularly close to my heart, given my background as a deep neural network developer/researcher and software product analyst.

Because of this background, which informs my perspective on advanced AI and software development, my approach to teaching goes beyond theoretical discussions and studying legal texts. Wake Forest Law fostered interdisciplinary collaborations with our computer science and engineering departments, makerspaces, and labs, providing our law students with hands-on experience in developing software systems, and we've conducted hackathon-like learning experiences. These experiences equip students with an unusually deep understanding of the product development life cycle, the intricacies of building test cases and the importance of effective product documentation. Students take these experiences to inform their researched responses to agency Request For Comments (RFCs) on proposed regulations.

In today's rapidly changing legal landscape, where an increasing number of laws and regulations govern the development and use of AI, lawyers are becoming integral to the product development process. We recognize that attorneys are uniquely positioned to navigate the complex legal and ethical considerations that arise in this field. Through forward-looking courses like the one I teach, we are actively training the future generation of attorneys to excel in this intersection of law and technology.

While law firms, in general, have been slow to establish comprehensive generative AI usage policies, academic institutions must equip students with the knowledge and ethics necessary to navigate this evolving landscape.

WT: We have heard about lawyers being fined and/or fired for using AI to generate court filings. How do you think lawyers can best use AI as a tool while avoiding such consequences?

RH: It is essential for lawyers to use tools they understand and can explain. Given the complexity and potential consequences of legal work, I recommend that lawyers exercise the utmost caution when adopting AI solutions. Waiting for reputable, legal use-case optimized AI systems to emerge is a prudent approach. These systems are more likely to have architectures optimized to offer greater accuracy, improved citation management and built-in safeguards, such as warnings prompting attorneys to review documents before submitting them to clients or courts.

Lawyers should remain attentive to court-specific rules and guidelines concerning the use of generative AI. Court orders on AI usage vary, and it is the attorney's responsibility to ensure compliance.

WT: There has also been concern that AI will replace lawyers or make much of their work redundant. Do you think this is a valid concern? What do you say to law students or those thinking about law school when they express such concerns?

RH: The concern that AI may replace lawyers or render their work redundant is valid to some extent. However, this is not a wholly unprecedented challenge; the legal profession has historically adapted to technological advancements, such as e-discovery. While we are in uncharted territory, many professions are facing similar disruptions due to AI. Radiologists are just one prime example.

To law students and those contemplating a legal career, I would emphasize that change is inevitable in any field. While AI will undoubtedly transform legal practice, it also presents exciting opportunities.

Aspiring attorneys, armed with a can-do attitude and sharp analytical skills, can leverage advanced AI to their advantage. This may include starting their own practices earlier in their careers, exploring various practice areas and expanding into untapped markets to serve a broader range of communities and clients.

AI should be viewed as a tool that, when harnessed effectively, can enhance and scale legal services rather than replace them.

WT: What are your predictions for the use of AI in law schools and the legal profession in the upcoming 10 years and beyond?

RH: In the coming years, it's evident that generative AI will become an integral part of the law school experience. However, it's essential to recognize that lawyers have always been social engineers. AI systems are merely imperfect tools in a lawyer's toolkit, and understanding how to wield them effectively while maintaining a deep understanding of the law is paramount.

The future of legal education will strike a balance between tradition and innovation. Students will still undergo the rigorous process of dissecting complex legal texts, analyzing cases and crafting legal documents from nearly scratch. This transformative experience is essential for developing the patience, critical thinking and problem-solving skills that define the legal profession.

Simultaneously, legal education will evolve to equip students with the skills to interact thoughtfully with AI systems. They will learn not only to prompt and utilize generative AI, but also to critically assess its outputs. This training will empower them to improve their drafts, research and document analysis, enhancing their overall efficiency and effectiveness as legal professionals. Lawyers will also be called on to help clients navigate injustices and adverse outcomes produced by these systems. We must prepare students to identify the sorts of harms these systems will pose when deployed at scale. We must teach students about the development, testing and evaluation of these systems.

There will be a growing emphasis on students' well-being and authenticity. While AI can achieve remarkable feats, lawyers must retain their ability to connect with clients, convey their unique perspectives and maintain authenticity. This human touch remains a lawyer's most valuable asset, and legal education will strive to ensure that students do not lose sight of its significance in the age of AI.

In essence, the legal profession is poised for a transformation where AI serves as a powerful ally, augmenting the capabilities of lawyers. As we prepare future attorneys, we will instill a holistic understanding of generative AI's role while preserving the foundational principles that have defined the practice of law for centuries — the ability to engage in systems thinking to form effective strategies for optimal outcomes.