Winston Churchill's description of Russia as "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" finds a surprising echo in today's challenge of training young lawyers in the age of artificial intelligence. The legal profession stands at a crossroads, tasked with equipping new lawyers with essential skills amidst rapidly advancing AI technologies.

Recent discussions, including insights from economist Tyler Cowen, underscore the urgency for law schools to intensify their focus on GenAI skills. The traditional methods of teaching are being questioned, with suggestions that more emphasis should be placed on practical, in-class applications and less on potentially AI-dependent homework.

Clay Shirky, vice provost at New York University, contributes a nuanced perspective to this debate. In his piece for the New York Times, Shirky argues that learning fundamentally involves changes in long-term memory, an outcome best achieved through direct, in-class assessments like oral exams and real-time essays. He expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of current approaches that rely heavily on written assignments, which may inadvertently encourage AI-dependency.

The implications for law schools are profound. Historically, U.S. law education relied on the Socratic method— a dynamic, oral questioning technique designed to stimulate critical thinking and deep understanding. This method, if revived and properly implemented, could serve as a robust counterbalance to the passive, AI-enabled absorption of information that Shirky warns against.

However, transitioning back to such interactive teaching methods is not without challenges. It demands more from educators in terms of preparation and adaptability, moving away from the comfort of repeated lectures to engaging with students in a more demanding, yet potentially more rewarding manner.

Moreover, the necessity for real-world application of knowledge continues beyond graduation. Law firms are called upon to enhance their training programs, focusing on mentorship and practical experience rather than over-reliance on AI tools. This shift requires a cultural change within firms, prioritizing long-term development over immediate profitability.

The stakes are high. Without adapting our educational strategies, we risk preparing a generation of lawyers who are proficient in using tools but perhaps less so in the art of lawyering. The potential consequences are stark—a legal profession overshadowed by AI, where the nuanced, human-centric practice of law could become more of an anomaly than a standard.

In essence, the journey to effectively train young lawyers in the AI era is indeed a complex puzzle. It challenges educators and practitioners alike to rethink strategies, balance technology with traditional learning, and prepare for a future where both elements coexist harmoniously. The question remains: can the legal profession adapt swiftly and effectively enough to maintain its critical role in society?