In an era where Generative AI (GenAI) tools are becoming ubiquitous in professional environments, the traditional methods of training lawyers are being called into question. The concern is profound: as AI takes over repetitive legal tasks, are we at risk of losing the nuanced 'thinking like a lawyer' that comes from hands-on experience?

A recent interview with economist Tyler Cowen sheds light on a pressing issue: the educational system, including law schools, is lagging in adapting to the AI-driven world. Cowen argues that rather than shying away from AI, educational institutions should integrate it into their curricula, emphasizing critical thinking, creativity, and adaptability—skills that AI has yet to master.

At the forefront of this educational shift is the use of AI tools like OpenAI's Study Mode. This tool encourages learners to engage deeply with material, promoting a critical thinking process rather than mere memorization. For instance, instead of rote learning mathematical tables, Study Mode might ask students to explore the concept behind a multiplication problem, fostering a deeper understanding.

Law schools, in particular, are urged to rethink their educational strategies. The traditional Socratic method, a staple in legal education, can be revitalized with AI. Instead of focusing solely on memorization of case facts, students could use AI to prepare case summaries and then critically analyze the AI's accuracy and depth in class discussions. This approach not only keeps the critical learning process intact but also enhances students' understanding and interaction with AI tools.

Moreover, law schools should reconsider the role of adjunct professors. Practicing lawyers can bring invaluable real-world insights into the classroom, bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application. This is especially crucial in teaching students how to identify the limitations and errors of AI outputs, an essential skill as AI becomes more prevalent in legal practice.

However, despite these innovative approaches, there is concern that inertia within educational institutions might hinder necessary reforms. Law schools traditionally focus on scholarship and academic prestige, often at the expense of practical skills that are increasingly vital in today’s tech-driven world.

To truly prepare law students for the future, legal education must embrace AI fully. This means not only using AI as a tool but also teaching students how to critically engage with the technology, understanding its capabilities and limitations. Integrating AI literacy and application across all courses would ensure that all law students, regardless of their future workplaces, are proficient in both traditional legal reasoning and modern technological tools.

As we stand on the brink of a new era in legal practice, it is imperative that law schools lead the charge in transforming legal education to meet the challenges and opportunities presented by GenAI. The goal is clear: to equip future lawyers not just to use technology, but to harness it creatively and responsibly in their pursuit of justice.