US law schools update AI policies

The University of Chicago Law School, Berkeley Law and Columbia Law School join an expanding cohort of U.S. law schools that are revising their artificial-intelligence policies. This initiative reflects legal educators’ aim to safeguard autonomous legal reasoning while equipping students for a practice environment today saturated with AI tools.

Reports indicate that over the summer, a minimum of twelve U.S. law schools implemented new or updated AI policies. These updates vary from limiting technology in classrooms to mandating education in legal technology. This shift signifies a transition from viewing generative AI primarily as an academic integrity issue to determining when students should work independently and when they should be trained in its use.

For its mandatory first-year core curriculum, the University of Chicago has adopted a restrictive policy. During the 2026-27 academic year, laptops, tablets and phones are prohibited in those classes subject to limited exceptions, including disability accommodations and instructor-authorised activities. Exams will also be conducted without internet access, electronic files, or apps.

The institution aims to support critical and independent thinking among students, rather than dependence on automated tools. However, the University of Chicago is not completely banning AI from legal education. Its first-year legal research and writing program introduces AI for research, revision, draft refinement, and oral argument preparation, following initial independent writing.

Berkeley Law has adopted a restrictive approach for graded assignments, prohibiting students from using AI for conceptualizing, outlining, drafting, revising, editing, or translating submitted work. AI is also banned during exams, and students are not allowed to upload course materials to generative AI systems. Faculty may set different rules if they deem AI use suitable for a particular course.

Columbia Law School has adopted a more lenient approach, allowing students to use AI for research, argument testing, seeking feedback, exploring alternative phrasings, and enhancing clarity. However, students cannot use AI to perform the original legal reasoning or analysis that an assignment is meant to evaluate. Work submitted for credit must remain student-composed, while AI use during examinations is prohibited by default unless an instructor expressly permits it.

The University of Georgia School of Law is also combining restrictions with technology training, prohibiting classroom use of electronic devices unless authorised by an instructor or required as an accommodation. Students matriculating from autumn 2026 must also complete a course satisfying a new technological competence requirement before graduation.

The database, updated on 20 September, contains public-source material from 180 U.S. law schools and currently lists 38 schools under its mandatory-curriculum category. The changes reflect the increasing expectation that AI forms part of modern legal practice, with lawyers using generative AI needing to consider existing duties, including competence, confidentiality, supervision, client communication, and candour to tribunals.