US law schools are rapidly replacing informal AI guidance with explicit rules and compulsory instruction. Reuters reported on 21 September that at least 12 schools introduced or revised AI policies over the northern summer.
A new public-source archive curated by Suffolk University Law School dean Andrew Perlman now compares policies and teaching strategies across 180 law schools. Its records show markedly different approaches: some institutions restrict devices or generative AI to protect independent legal reasoning, while others permit supervised uses such as testing arguments, studying concepts and receiving criticism.
For example, Columbia Law School’s policy, effective 1 August, permits limited AI assistance but requires submitted work to remain the product of the student’s own intellectual creativity and judgment. The archive currently identifies 38 schools with some form of mandatory AI curriculum, although its curator cautions that not every source or summary has been independently verified.
The development matters because AI competence is becoming a professional-formation issue rather than an optional technology subject. The emerging consensus is not that students should learn prompting. They must learn when assistance becomes substitution—and how to verify, challenge and ultimately adopt the resulting legal analysis.
Australian law schools and employers face the same design problem: producing lawyers who can use AI effectively without surrendering the independent judgment on which professional responsibility depends.
Sources: policy archive; Columbia Law School policy; Reuters.
Leave a Reply