I ask, and sometimes I receive.

In a recent post, I wondered aloud:

Could ChatGPT or any of its rivals (in any of their variations, write a publishable work of legal scholarship? What further questions would the answer (yes? no?) raise?

Perhaps that’s been done? The asking? The writing? The submitting? The publishing?

I now have some answers, thanks to this blog’s readers. More below the jump.

Robert Ahdieh, Dean at Texas A&M, alerted me to this 2025 issue of the Texas A&M Journal of Property Law. In the abstract to their Foreword, the student editors wrote:

In the course of publishing the 2024–25 Volume of the Texas A&M Journal of Property Law, we, the Editorial Board, were presented with the opportunity to publish a collection of articles drafted explicitly with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”). After some consideration, we made the decision to do so. The following is our endeavor to share with our peers and colleagues—who may soon find themselves in similar situations—what we have learned in this process and, separately, contribute some forward-looking standards that can be implemented in the arena of legal scholarship for the transparent signaling and taxonomizing of AI-assisted works.

Andrew Perlman, Dean at Suffolk Law, pointed me to a manuscript of his that is currently on SSRN, titled “Generative AI and the Future of Legal Scholarship.” It is waiting, perhaps, for conversion into a conventionally-published article. An excerpt from the abstract follows:

To demonstrate the growing ability of generative AI to yield new insights and draft sophisticated scholarly text, the rest of this piece contains a new theory of legal scholarship drafted exclusively by ChatGPT. In other words, the article simultaneously articulates the way in which legal scholarship will change due to AI and uses the technology itself to demonstrate the point.

The entire piece, except for the epilogue, was created by ChatGPT (OpenAI o1) in December 2024. The methodology for generating the piece was intentionally simple and started with the following prompt:

“Develop a novel conception of the future of legal scholarship that rivals some of the leading conceptions of legal scholarship. The new conception should integrate developments in generative AI and explain how scholars might use it. It should end with a series of questions that legal scholars and law schools will need to address in light of this new conception.”

Relatedly, I was reminded that Alan Rozenshtein (Minnesota) and Kevin Frazier (Texas) have a forthcoming article titled “Large Language Scholarship” on SSRN (forthcoming, FIU Law Review). It was and is written by them rather than by AI, or at least so it appears, from this statement (among others): “The most urgent task for the legal academy is … to develop new practices and pedagogies that deliberately preserve the cognitive journal of intellectual struggle and discovery” (48). The key parts of the abstract:

This Article provides the first comprehensive analysis of how generative AI will reshape legal academia, making three core contributions. First, we explain why integrating AI into scholarship is unavoidable, driven by exponential technological advances, relentless publication pressures, and the practical impossibility of detection.

Second, we map the cascading effects across the legal ecosystem: unprecedented scholarly productivity alongside risks of “scholarly deepfakes”; democratized access to sophisticated analysis coupled with cognitive deskilling; and seismic shifts in how law schools hire faculty, how students learn legal writing, and how courts evaluate scholarly authority.

Third, we propose a framework for responsible use, challenging the common case for mandatory disclosure and arguing that traditional plagiarism norms do not apply to AI tools. Instead, we advocate for absolute authorial accountability and provide practical advice for using AI—including a detailed appendix on specific tools and techniques—while maintaining the essential human judgment that gives scholarship its value. 

And, as Lieutenant Columbo might have said, “just one more thing.” In his his “AI for Legal Education” newsletter, Seth Chandler (Houston) reports on using AI to help him and his seminar students produce not only seminar papers but also a published book that contains the students’ final products. The book is titled “Issues in Contemporary Constitutional Law,” edited by Professor Chandler, and it is now available at Amazon.com. The description of the book at Amazon.com reads:

Issues in Contemporary Constitutional Law is an anthology of constitutional analysis emerging from a graduate-level seminar at the University of Houston Law Center. Edited by Professor Seth J. Chandler, the volume brings together original chapters by upper-level law students grappling with some of the most pressing constitutional questions of the moment, including the cumulative establishment clause violations, academic freedom in public universities, federal–state conflict over immigration enforcement, disability discrimination, private enforcement mechanisms, LGBTQ+ student speech, and the growing role of artificial intelligence in constitutional interpretation.

What makes this book distinctive is not only its subject matter, but its method. The essays were produced through an “augmented seminar” model that required students to use modern AI tools critically—as research assistants, not replacements—under close faculty supervision. The result is a collection of rigorously argued, deeply researched chapters that reflect both doctrinal sophistication and contemporary urgency. This volume is intended for students, scholars, and practitioners seeking thoughtful engagement with constitutional law as it is being shaped right now.