In this changing time of evolution in the field of Artificial Intelligence, its interface with the legal education system is a big debate. Few believe that bringing the efficient option of AI will not just boost up the quality of its but also helps in maintaining proper data storage of the law student development by continually tracking and examining with Artificial Intelligence. However, opposing to such argument, few find it not so effective methodology legal fraternity should opt for.
One of the recent developments in this area is in regards to placing Law Professors/Faculty with AI. This idea brings mixed reactions amongst different stakeholders of legal education. The most common stand taken was in regard to the very nature and purpose of education itself. It argues that the law schools will always be about learning from experienced Advocates and Law Faculties. To think like Law-experts, with all the imagination and appropriate practical examples, empathy, and versatility to suit individual law students by AI is hard to imagine and create. Technologies cannot substitute the expertise and experience of the human being as a law professor.
On the other hand, many law professors are heard complaining about law schools, converting them into clerks with tons and tons of paperwork. Bringing AI has lots of favorable results in the sense of bringing synchronized data-keeping, record-holding which help to derive more accurate data from evaluating the growth of law students. Also, to impart various theoretical and practical dimensions of law will not just help the law students to learn more and more but it shall also act as a means to connect traditional knowledge systems with upcoming requirements of the legal field. As the cliché goes: every coin has two sides. In the case of AI and Legal Education, firstly, it needs to be ensured that students are psychologically adaptive to this new approach where they should feel comfortable and mentally connected to this new system of learning. Secondly, there should be some specific boundaries or principles that need to be formulated to bring the best result out of this process. The purpose is to prepare students to be “future-ready” lawyers. However, there is still no common understanding or philosophy in this regard, as there is still multiple difficulties in bringing usage of AI in legal education. Nevertheless, a broad range of ideas is taking root, somewhat experimentally, across the law school community who are examining the efficiency of AI and its influence on legal learning. The near future evidently seems to be more technologically advanced. Hence, moving towards AI-oriented legal education may be a good and progressive development in the field of education as a whole.
-Ankitashree Tripathi & Mitsu Parikh