Day 26: AI and Human Intelligence in Law School (Not an Oxymoron)

Photo by Brooke Cagle on Unsplash

The next generation of AI really has me thinking about what legal education should be.

As computers get good - really good - at collecting and analyzing information and generating drafts of legal documents, attorneys will still need some traditional core skills. We’ll need to be able to review, refine, and verify what AI tells us. We’ll need to learn to deploy AI tools to expand access to our services - not even to get ahead but just to keep up. And we’ll need to perfect the Art of the Pivot as technology continually changes the landscape of our profession.

But one skill will become more valuable in the AI-disrupted legal marketplace: human intelligence.

As John Villasenor wrote for Brookings,

AI can’t make a convincing presentation to a jury. The technology can’t fully weigh the factors that go into the many strategic decisions, large and small, that get made over the course of any litigation matter. It can’t replace the human element of relationships with clients. And a computer can’t play a leadership role in motivating a team of attorneys to produce their best work.

Making the Law School Classroom More Human

Law school is no longer The Paper Chase. Faculty who act like Professor Kingsfield nowadays get chased out pretty quickly. But the law is still an exacting profession, and for those of us - myself included - who were students under the “old school,” it can still be difficult to strike the right balance between the rigor needed to be a responsible advocate and the soft skills needed to make it all come together.

As I think about AI - and maybe just as I get older - I find myself tipping pretty strongly in the direction of the human side. Not to throw away rigor, but to make it work in a way that 21st century law practice will demand.

Human Intelligence for Dummies (i.e. Law Professors)

This has led me (finally! yeah, I know) to prioritize my teaching goals this year in a way that I wouldn’t have in the past…

Like extended icebreakers in clinical or simulation courses, because studies show those silly exercises actually establish bonds, and bonds improve performance.

Or social get-togethers instead professional speeches, because law students validly complain about being over-scheduled and talked-at, and under-mentored and seen.

Or grabbing a cup of coffee (caffeine makes me really chatty) and walking aimlessly around the law school a couple times a week - even if (gasp!) my lecture notes are not flawlessly prepared.

The Case for Humanity

I’m certainly not arguing that the law will become easy, or that law schools should just teach students to hold hands and sing kumbaya all day. AI or no, I want my lawyer to understand the law - hardly an intuitive subject - and be prepared to make strategic decisions with analytical rigor.

But I’m only going to hire a lawyer to provide the things I can’t get from a machine - the human aspects. And when I need that kind of service, I’ll want a lawyer who has thought consciously about how to incorporate humanity into law practice, and who is skilled at doing so.

It’s a learning process - law schools aren’t very practiced at this sort of thing, and it’s certainly not something we’ve been tested on for the bar. I’m looking forward to a year of trying and learning (from colleagues, from students, from failure) how to bring the human side into the law school classroom - and start defining the 21st century lawyer.