How legal education is adapting to AI

The law library identifies general-purpose language models as useful for early-stage exploration, summaries, brainstorming research strategies, and related study support, subject to independent verification.

The School of Law's 2026–27 handbook permits generative AI for exam preparation—for example, summarizing case law or building outlines—unless a professor adopts a different course policy in writing. AI use during an exam is prohibited.

Baylor's student guide identifies brainstorming, generating search terms, explaining complex concepts, and verified summarizing or outlining as potential learning uses of generative AI. It directs students to verify facts and citations and to use library databases for actual sources.

Belmont Law's 2026–27 handbook makes generative-AI use instructor-controlled. Students may use it only when an instructor expressly permits or directs the use and must comply with any course-specific limits or disclosure requirements.

The law library recommends personal research, initial brainstorming, identifying search terms, and developing Boolean searches as potential study uses, while emphasizing that professor-specific coursework rules control.

The Technology Committee's sample policies permit preparing for class, studying for exams, and brainstorming assignments, while cautioning students not to use AI as a substitute for assigned readings. The samples are nonbinding guidance.

Campbell Law's Honor Code prohibits generative AI for any academic purpose, including research, class preparation, studying, and brainstorming, unless the instructor expressly authorizes the specific use in the syllabus or a supplemental written document.

Chapman's Provost task force supplies nonbinding sample course policies that identify brainstorming, refining research questions, finding general information, outlining, and grammar or style review as possible AI uses. Individual instructors choose the applicable course rule.

Unless an instructor adopts a different written rule, students may use AI to learn legal concepts, summarize their own notes or materials, generate examples or hypotheticals, serve as a mooting partner, define legal terms, and study for examinations.

The Rinn Law Library provides student guidance on brainstorming, explaining complex concepts, developing outlines and research plans, creating study aids, prompting, verification, and responsible AI use.

Drexel advises students to use AI to support rather than replace learning, including brainstorming, organizing ideas, planning, note-taking, and improving grammar or clarity. Students are told to verify outputs and follow the rules for each course.

Elon's AI Hub encourages students to develop AI literacy and identifies tools for private study and learning, including practice tests, flashcards, study assistance, note-taking, and research. Students are cautioned to verify results and follow course-specific rules.

The law library recommends generative AI as a supplemental research and learning aid for brainstorming issues, clarifying terms, developing arguments, building context, and identifying research leads, while requiring independent verification and conventional legal research.

The 2026–27 Handbook of Academic Policies expressly permits students to prompt AI while studying for an exam about relevant topics or concepts, but not to have AI pre-write text that the student later incorporates into an exam answer.

Section 400.4 encourages AI for learning, research, and grammar correction, but also states that any use not expressly authorized by the instructor is academic dishonesty. Any authorized use must be disclosed and cited, and AI may not compose submitted work.

The IU Code permits AI and other external assistance on ungraded academic-related activities unless the instructor or syllabus prohibits it; course-specific restrictions still control.

For coursework, Loyola permits AI as a reference, ideation, research-assistance, translation, or tutoring tool only with faculty approval. Students must check the course syllabus or ask the instructor, preserve their own judgment, and verify factual output.

AI-enabled legal-research databases and similar research tools remain permitted unless the instructor restricts them. The regulations separately prohibit unauthorized AI use in preparing any assignment.

MSU's guidelines recognize uses such as practicing problems, exploring concepts, and reviewing definitions, but direct students to seek clarification so private learning uses remain consistent with course- and assignment-specific academic-integrity rules.

The 2026–27 policy permits background research, clarification of legal concepts, organizing thoughts before writing, and spelling or grammar checks unless an instructor restricts them. The permissions do not extend to examinations or assignments completed for credit unless the professor expressly authorizes AI use.

The student AI guide distinguishes learning uses—checking reasoning, exploring doctrine, and generating practice problems—from using AI to produce academic work, and emphasizes course rules and ethical use.

The Mendik Library's law-student guide explains AI tools and uses, prompt engineering, ethical use, and fact-checking so students can explore and evaluate AI outputs critically.

NSU Law permits generative-AI features built into general and legal search tools as a method for finding authoritative primary and secondary sources, but students may not cite the AI search output or carry its language into their work. Grammarly, spell-check, Shepard's, Word auto-footnotes, and similar automated tools are permitted unless an assignment says otherwise.

Through the law school's Harvey partnership, students can use the platform to summarize notes and other materials, create outlines and study guides, and generate retrieval-practice questions, while remaining responsible for verifying the output.

The handbook permits database-style identification of research documents and spelling or grammar review while restricting broader AI assistance.

The law library advises students to define the task, understand tool limits, review and edit output, and confirm course rules with the professor.

University guidance expressly covering Law School students identifies supplemental explanations and examples, discussion prompts and hypotheticals, idea generation and outlines, and other learning exercises as possible AI uses within instructor-set boundaries. The Law School handbook separately prohibits AI assistance with academic work by default unless the instructor expressly permits it.

The policy and FAQ permit AI for pre-exam study, including outline preparation, explanations of legal concepts and case holdings, and practice, subject to course-specific rules, accuracy verification, and the restriction on sharing professor-created or confidential materials.

Across all courses, including clinics, the default permits AI to support learning and to develop or refine a student's own ideas, subject to course-specific rules.

Stetson's current guidance asks students to follow course rules, verify AI output, avoid overreliance, protect private or confidential information, and respect faculty and publisher restrictions on course content.

Every course must select one of three prescribed AI statements. Depending on the selected statement, research, brainstorming, outlining, organizing, and polishing are prohibited, permitted only for named work, or broadly permitted with disclosure and citation.

The Law School handbook prohibits generative AI for any academic work unless the course instructor gives explicit permission; ordinary spelling and grammar checking remains allowed unless the instructor restricts it.

The interim default governs course-associated work whether or not it is submitted and permits AI for learning and brainstorming, subject to verification, confidentiality, citation, and any different course rule announced by the professor.

The strategy identifies productive study uses and de-skilling risks but does not announce one school-wide rule for AI use in coursework.

Students may not upload assignments, readings, slides, class recordings, or other class content to generative AI systems, which restricts study uses that depend on those materials. The policy does not otherwise expressly address private, non-upload study uses.

University AI guidelines permit AI as a learning aid when it does not provide an unauthorized academic advantage; an official example is generating practice problems for exam preparation. Instructor and course rules still control.

Handbook § 4.9 permits pre-exam AI queries about a case holding or arguments for and against a legal position. The July 2026 strategy separately identifies clarification of background concepts and generation of practice problems as productive study uses. Course-specific instructions still control.

UC describes AI as a potential personalized tutor and study aid and identifies study strategies and topic brainstorming as possible student uses. The guide cautions that instructors should align any use with course learning goals and explain the applicable boundaries.

UF's universitywide guidance identifies private learning uses including self-quizzing, study guides, tutoring, personalized feedback, and supplemental learning. Students are directed to evaluate AI output critically, protect privacy, and follow course and assignment rules.

UGA Law says that, within its rule against unauthorized assignment use, students may perhaps use AI at the margins for study or brainstorming when the professor has not expressly prohibited it. The school urges students to discuss expectations with the professor.

UIC Law's AI guide and the UIC-adopted University of Illinois System guidance identify AI as a possible aid for explaining concepts, creating study materials or practice, and supporting learning, subject to verification and instructor rules.

KU identifies explanations of complex topics, examples, practice questions, early-stage ideation, summaries, and possible source leads as learning support. Students are told to use AI as a supplement, preserve their own thinking, and critically verify its output.

For 2026–27, AI may be used for studying and preparing for class or exams, subject to course rules.

CETL's model policy lists brainstorming, outlining, feedback, summarizing readings, clarifying passages, and checking problem-set work as examples instructors may choose to permit. The model does not itself authorize those uses in every course.

Unless a professor publishes different rules, the policy permits generative AI for purposes such as generating ideas or questions, finding paper topics, and assisting research; submitted assignments and assessments remain subject to a default prohibition.

USD's universitywide student guidance identifies possible learning uses including explaining concepts, generating practice questions, organizing notes, outlining, and refining drafts. Students must follow each instructor's rules, stay actively engaged, and verify AI output. The University identifies the material as guidance rather than official policy.

Unless a written course rule provides otherwise, students may use generative AI to study for exams, including preparing outlines and reviewing case holdings and legal arguments.

UDC's AI Help Guide suggests using generative AI to create private study aids such as flashcards, practice quizzes, outlines, and summaries. The guide also emphasizes recognizing the tools' limitations and checking their output.

Effective September 30, 2026, students may use generative AI for limited learning support unless an instructor restricts it, including brainstorming research questions, identifying background concepts or research leads, and reviewing grammar, spelling, or formatting. Students remain responsible for evaluating accuracy and reliability.

Students may use AI-generated study materials under the default policy, subject to written course-specific departures.