Training the Lawyers of Tomorrow: Why AI Literacy Must Be Integrated into Legal Education

Noor Ghuniem, Contributing Member 2024-2025

Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal

I. Introduction

Math, English, Science, and History: the four fundamental subjects that have shaped educational standards worldwide since the dawn of standardized schooling systems, tracing their origins back centuries.[1]

Today, we live in an era where a powerful force has been shaping the world for years and is now reaching its peak – technology.[2] It plays a pivotal role across various sectors, including the economy, healthcare, and communication.[3] AI, for example, is changing the legal profession, and courts have not yet determined how.[4]

AI particularly presents both opportunities and risks in the legal field.[5] The rapid rise of this tool is paralleled by the increasing importance of Intellectual Property and Computer Law.[6] While the software can streamline case law analysis and document drafting, issues such as hallucinated citations, ethical concerns, and copyright violations pose significant challenges.[7] As a result, several law schools are adapting by integrating AI and IP-focused education to prepare future lawyers for this evolving landscape.[8] The key questions therefore become whether academic initiatives are keeping up with industry demands and whether legal curricula need to be completely reformed to mandate technological education. [9]

This article explores the evolving impact of AI on the legal field, and the steps attorneys and universities should take to adapt to these advancements. Part II provides background on the importance of legal education in modern day society, and the implications of its absence. Part III discusses potential copyright issues that arise with AI, the legal institutions that have integrated AI initiatives and whether such training should be a requirement in the legal profession. Finally, Part IV concludes with the next steps attorneys should anticipate in response to these advancements.

II. Background

AI-powered legal research tools have become a staple across major legal research platforms, including Westlaw Edge, Lexis+ AI, Casetext CoCounsel, and ChatGPT.[10] Widely adopted in law firms and courts, these tools assist with summarizing arguments, drafting legal memoranda and briefs, and suggesting legal strategies.[11] While designed for high accuracy, they are not infallible and can still make mistakes.[12]

Mata v. Avianca became infamous in the legal community due to a fatal citation error.[13] Plaintiff Roberto Mata sued Avianca Airlines after a metal food cart struck his knee during a flight.[14] His attorney, Steven Schwartz, filed a brief citing multiple legal precedents, largely generated by AI, to argue against a potential dismissal based on the statute of limitations.[15] However, the court struggled to verify several of the cited cases and ultimately discovered that ChatGPT had fabricated case law, including citations to nonexistent court opinions.[16] As a result, the court imposed monetary sanctions and ordered the attorneys to inform their clients and the judges of the false citations. [17]

This case serves as a cautionary tale for attorneys considering ChatGPT as a tool for legal work.[18] Not only can these systems produce inaccurate information, but they also raise unresolved issues regarding copyright and the ownership of AI-generated content.[19] AI model companies train their systems using existing case law, statutes, legal commentary, templates, journals, and more.[20] Ongoing litigation has already been filed against AI firms like OpenAI and Google by news publishers, authors, and artists – leaving the possibility of legal research publishers being next a likely scenario.[21]

Legal education, therefore, has become increasingly essential in the modern world as attorneys navigate the boundaries of AI use in their practice.

III. Discussion

Training AI and Potential Copyright Issues

Artificial Intelligence models, like ChatGPT, are trained using datasets that contain text from books, articles, websites, legal documents and other pertinent sources.[22] As the models are trained, the AI learns patterns, relationships, and structures in the language of the inputted content, but does not store the data in the traditional sense.[23] However, the sources used to train the data raise important question regarding copyright.[24] If the content is protected, there is a risk that the usage of the AI software output constitutes copyright infringement, especially if the model reproduces substantial parts of the content verbatim.[25]

Conversely, many of the legal materials used to train AI are considered part of the public domain.[26] For instance, the Supreme Court in Wheaton v. Peters, and later in Banks v. Manchester, confirmed that judicial opinions are not eligible for copyright.[27] These rulings align with the Government Edicts Doctrine, which holds that legal materials created by government officials in the course of their duties, including statutes, regulations, and court decisions, are inherently public domain works.[28]

When material is deemed protected by copyright, however, defenses such as, “fair use” may be presented.[29] The fair use doctrine allows a limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as commentary, criticism, education, or research.[30] Courts assessing fair use consider factors such as the purpose of use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the effect on the market value of the original.[31] An argument can be made that the content generated by the AI model is transformative enough that it is fair use if there is a potential infringement violation at hand.[32] Although this affirmative defense is available, the fair use doctrine is not a bright line rule.[33] Rather, fair use is fact specific which can lead to unpredictability in outcomes and application, creating a risk of liability. [34]

Given all the different running factors risks and nuances, legal education of AI and technology usage becomes even more pertinent to navigate the progression ethically and responsibly.

Current Status of AI Education in Law Schools

Several law schools have already begun adapting curricula to equip future lawyers with the skills necessary to navigate the technological changes that will undoubtedly play a significant role in the future of the law.[35] Some institutions have implemented AI Technology Centers dedicated to studying AI, technology, and law.[36]

Harvard Law School, for example, has worked diligently with its Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society (BKC), a lead research center dedicated to studying the impact of the internet, technology, and digital innovation on law and society.[37] In July 2023, the law school launched “The Initiative on Artificial Intelligence and the Law (IAIL).”[38] The program focuses on exploring how AI is shaping the legal systems, governance, and public policy.[39] The key objectives include examining how AI is used in judicial decision-making, contract analysis, and legal research.[40] The institution additionally investigates challenges to copyright, patent, and trademark laws, AI’s role in content moderation, data privacy, the spread of misinformation online, and policies around AI liability.[41] Through interdisciplinary collaboration that engages legal scholars, policymakers, technologists, publications, workshops, conferences, and policy advocacy, IAIL profoundly impacts the Harvard community while offering a readily available tool to learn more about AI’s new integration into legal practice.[42]

The University of Virginia School of Law (UVA) has additionally implemented AI-concentrated courses, including “Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning” and “Law and Artificial Intelligence.”[43] The curriculum helps to explain topics including algorithm bias, privacy, liability, the impact of AI on legal domains, and the legal status of AI entities.[44] Furthermore, the University of Virginia launched a university-wide initiative in September of 2024 called the “LaCross Institute for Ethical Artificial Intelligence in Business.”[45] While the Institute’s mission is to ensure that AI’s potential is harnessed responsibly in business contexts by bringing together researchers, educators, students, and industry leaders to advance the understanding and implementation of ethical AI, the Institute additionally fosters interdisciplinary engagement.[46] LaCross provides opportunities for students across the graduate schools, including law, to engage in discussions and training regarding AI’s societal implications.[47] The Institute submits publications on ethical challenges and implications and hosts conferences and symposia, and encourages students to participate.[48]

These schools are part of a broader trend among law schools incorporating AI education into their curricula.[49] In fact, a recent survey conducted by the (ABA) Association revealed that over half of the nation’s law schools have begun to offer classes related to AI.[50]At the same time, most law schools and general academic institutions have policies that prohibit the use of AI across assigned work to maintain academic integrity and ensure the development of fundamental legal skills. At Harvard Law School, for example, the use of large AI language models for academic assignments or exam preparation or any submission is only allowed if explicitly approved by the instructor.[51] Unauthorized use is considered academic dishonesty and will lead to disciplinary action.[52] The University of Cincinnati College of Law follows the university-wide policy of encouraging students to review course syllabi for specific guidelines on AI usage and compliance with integrity policies in order to ensure AI tools are used responsibly and do not compromise the authenticity of work.[53]

Should AI Training Be a Required Course?

The American Bar Association does not impose a rigid set of required courses for law schools. Alternatively, the council sets standards that law schools must follow to ensure students develop competency in essential areas of legal practice to become accredited.[54] According to ABA Standard 303, Professional Responsibility (Ethics), Legal Research, Writing and Analysis, and Experiential Learning are all mandated for accreditation standard purposes.[55] Law schools must also provide professional development opportunities, and though not standardized by the ABA, many law schools select core bar-tested topics to administer as requirements to their students.[56]

The ABA emphasizes these requirements in the curricula to ensure graduates have attained the competencies necessary to be prepared for their professional lives.[57] As seen in Mata, AI seems to be creeping up as an area of concern for a multitude of reasons: unethical usage, copyright and trademark infringement, and generated information literacy, and more.[58] For example, in Getty Images v. Stability AI, Getty Images filed a lawsuit against Stability AI, the creator of the image generator Stable Diffusion, alleging that the company used millions of Getty’s copyrighted photos to train its AI model without permission or compensation.[59] This is a clear picture of where AI training practices have raised serious copyright issues, as Getty’s watermark even appeared in some of the generated outputs, indirect use of copyrighted materials.[60]

Furthermore, vicarious liability arises when an entity is held responsible for the actions of another party, typically in employer-employee relationships.[61]  Therefore, with regards to AI, firms and companies who allow their employees to use AI programs that generate infringing content could potentially face vicarious liability.[62]  For example, if a legal professional uses an AI tool that produces content infringing on copyrighted material, the firm may be held liable, especially if they had the right and ability to supervise the AI’s use and derived financial benefit from the infringing activity.[63]

Schools should continue equipping students with the necessary skills to navigate legal matters as AI becomes an integral tool in the profession to avoid such situations.[64] Legal scholars have contemplated whether AI will be able to replace the legal profession in its entirety one day but have settled on a more “in tandem approach.”[65] AI is likely to remain deeply integrated in the legal field for the foreseeable future, and aspiring or current attorneys should be prepared to incorporate it into their practice, in the same way they may practice proper legal writing.[66]

How We Can Anticipate AI to Shift the Legal Profession?

Equipping new associates with a foundational knowledge of the benefits and risks of AI in legal practice will enhance accuracy and accessibility while reshaping traditional legal work.[67] Currently, legal research platforms are now incorporating and refining their AI research systems.[68] While attorneys will need to recheck the systems’ work, these programs will elevate accuracy and reduce human errors when drafting contracts, reviewing compliance, and generating legal citations.[69] Several law firms, such as Vinson & Elkins in New York, only allow younger associates to use AI after partaking in mandatory training.[70] The partners of the firm understand AI cuts down a lot of the drudge work and encourages the implementation of the system so long as attorneys are also manually validating the information.[71]

Furthermore, as AI-driven automation reduces billable hours spent on receptive tasks, the software will streamline how much an attorney can do.[72] AI-powered contract review platforms, such as Evisort and Kira Systems, use machine learning to analyze large volumes of contracts quickly, flagging key terms and client risks.[73] With that, analytics tools like Premonition AI can assess past court rulings, judge tendencies, and opposing counsel strategies to predict case outcomes.[74] E-discovery will also be made exponentially more manageable by allowing an automated analysis of mass amounts of emails, documents, and digital evidence.[75] Law firms will likely be able to build their own internal AI systems, and employ the similar task management. The growing potential of machine intelligence underscores the need for proper education and training in the legal field to prevent unintended negative consequences.[76]

IV. Conclusion

As the technological field advances, the legal field should work in tandem. AI has the potential to enhance legal research, streamline workflows, and increase efficiency, but also presents ethical dilemmas, accuracy concerns, and intellectual property challenges. Lawyers have the chance to reshape the field by introducing clear ethical guidelines and best practices throughout firms and companies, incorporating AI literacy into legal education and ongoing professional development, and continuing collaboration with technologists and policy makers. By doing so, professionals throughout the practice can avoid limitations, biases, and violations of confidentiality or due process. The next generation of lawyers will therefore not only need to master traditional legal analysis but also understand the implications of AI-driven legal research, ensuring that technology remains a tool for justice rather than a source of misinformation.

---

[1] Ian Bogost, What the Freshman Class Ought to Be Studying, The Atlantic (Aug. 2024), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/08/what-freshman-class-ought-be-studying/679530/?utm_source=apple_news [https://perma.cc/JGU6-2AK9].

[2] AI: the new legal powerhouse — why lawyers should befriend the machine to stay ahead, Reuters (Oct. 24, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/ai-new-legal-powerhouse-why-lawyers-should-befriend-machine-stay-ahead-2024-10-24/ [https://perma.cc/TK6T-8TSD].

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Patrick Austin, LexisNexis and Westlaw Will Launch AI Legal Research Tools, NBI (Mar. 29, 2025), https://nbi-sems.com/blogs/news/lexisnexis-and-westlaw-will-launch-ai-legal-research-tools (https://perma.cc/9D3L-7KLH).

[11] Lyle Morgan, Lawyer cites fake cases generated by ChatGPT in legal brief, Legal Dive (May 30, 2023), https://www.legaldive.com/news/chatgpt-fake-legal-cases-generative-ai-hallucinations/651557/ [https://perma.cc/QQ9X-WYRL].

[12] Id.

[13] Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

[14] Id.

[15] Id. at 450.

[16] Id. at 451.

[17] Id. at 466.

[18] Id.

[19]  Joe Panettieri, Generative AI Lawsuits Timeline: Legal Cases vs. OpenAI, Microsoft, Anthropic, Nvidia, Perplexity, Intel and More, Sustainable Tech Partner (Feb. 26, 2025), https://sustainabletechpartner.com/topics/ai/generative-ai-lawsuit-timeline/ [https://perma.cc/LA5M-GCMW].

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Huyen Quang, Generative AI and Copyright: What Are the Infringement Risks?, 36 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 855, 1408 (2021).

[23] Id. at 1410.

[24] Id. at 1408.

[25] Id.  

[26] Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 100 (1879).

[27] Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 668 (1834); Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 254 (1888).

[28] Mark G. Matuschak, Supreme Court Expands the Government Edicts Doctrine to Legislators, WilmerHale(May 15, 2020), https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/client-alerts/20200515-supreme-court-expands-the-government-edicts-doctrine-to-legislators [https://perma.cc/LPU7-ZTFP].

[29] 17 U.S.C. § 107.

[30] Id.

[31] Id.

[32] Id.

[33] Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 577-78 (1994).

[34] Id.

[35] Artificial Intelligence and Law, Berkman Klein Ctr. for Internet & Soc’y, Harv. L. Sch., https://cyber.harvard.edu/projects/artificial-intelligence-and-law [https://perma.cc/E7WP-CFNS].

[36] Id.

[37] Id.

[38] Id.

[39] Id.

[40] Id.

[41] Id.

[42] Id.

[43] LawTech Center, Courses and Seminars, Univ. of Va. Sch. of L., https://www.law.virginia.edu/academics/program/lawtech-center

[44] Id.

[45] McGregor McCance, UVA Launches Institute at Darden School of Business to Focus on Artificial Intelligence, Darden Report Online (Sept. 16, 2024), https://news.darden.virginia.edu/2024/09/16/uva-launches-institute-at-darden-school-of-business-to-focus-on-artificial-intelligence/ [https://perma.cc/8CMY-23BK].

[46] Id.

[47] Id.

[48] Id.

[49] ABA Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence Releases Survey on AI and Legal Education, Am. Bar Ass’n (June 24, 2024), https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2024/06/aba-task-force-law-and-ai-survey/ [https://perma.cc/EY6Y-9A3U].

[50] Id.

[51] Harvard Law School Admissions Process, Harv. L. Sch., https://hls.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/HLS_HAP.pdf [https://perma.cc/2SY6-AGHA ].

[52] Id.

[53] AI Guidelines, Univ. of Cincinnati, https://www.uc.edu/about/ucit/software-tools/ai/guidelines.html [https://perma.cc/MQ4U-4N5T].

[54] ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, Chapter 3: Program of Legal Education, Am. Bar Ass’n (2024), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/standards/2024-2025/2024-2025-standards-chapter-3.pdf [https://perma.cc/8PFB-UGVC].

[55] Id.

[56] Id.

[57] Id.

[58] Mata, 678 F. Supp. 3d at 449.

[59] Sophia Goosens, Getty Images v. Stability AI: The Implications for UK Copyright Law and Licensing, PINSENT MASONS (Apr. 29, 2024), https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/analysis/getty-images-v-stability-ai-implications-copyright-law-licensing [https://perma.cc/M4XN-J2JU].

[60] Id.

[61] John DiGiacomo, AI Copyright Infringement: Can Artificial Intelligence Commit Copyright Infringement?, REVISION LEGAL (Sept. 22, 2023), https://revisionlegal.com/copyright/ai-copyright-infringement-can-artificial-intelligence-commit-copyright-infringement/. [https://perma.cc/9SYN-HU2K].

[62] Id.

[63] Id.

[64] Young Lawyers Build Tech Skills to Prepare for AI Impact, Fin. Times (Jan. 5, 2025), https://www.ft.com/content/1f7a0dfb-1ceb-45e8-bd9b-fd9a42655b7c [https://perma.cc/39WA-SNTU].

[65] Id.

[66] Id.

[67] Id.

[68] Id.

[69] Id.

[70] Id.

[71] Id.

[72] Complete Guide to AI and Automation in the Legal Industry, Legal AI Mind (Sept. 9, 2024), https://www.legalaimind.com/2024/09/the-complete-guide-to-ai-and-automation.html [https://perma.cc/9JZA-WM77].

[73] Id.

[74] Premonition AI, Premonition Analytics, https://premonition.ai/ [https://perma.cc/W6RQ-R9D5].

[75] Bob Dillen, How AI Transforms Document Review in eDiscovery, KPMG Insights (Sept. 2024), https://kpmg.com/ch/en/insights/cybersecurity-risk/e-discovery.html [https://perma.cc/5H7A-7EH2].

[76] Id.