This headline, of course, obscures much of the University of Chicago Law School’s nuanced and comprehensive policy statement on AI-resilient pedagogy in legal education. But, for many incoming 1Ls, the sound-bite headline may feel like the bottom line.
Will other law schools follow suit as the fall semester approaches? Links and details, below the fold.
For required 1L classes, the University of Chicago will severely limit classroom access to electronic devices, with some accessibility and pedagogical exceptions. Exams will be in-person and tightly restricted in terms of electronic resources. And in-class dialogue will receive continued emphasis. Although these types of constraints are common among specific instructors across law schools, the University of Chicago’s categorical institutional policy for 1L courses appears to be unique—at least for now.
The closest parallel to the University of Chicago’s policy statement probably comes from University of Texas School of Law Dean Bobby Chesney, who released a June memorandum to faculty that emphasized screen-limited classroom engagement as an antidote to “cognitive de-skilling.” More broadly, the market is moving on AI in legal education, and the crucial questions involve the ultimate equilibrium for AI policies, as well as the advantages that may inure to first movers.
University of Chicago Law School, Rethinking Legal Education in the AI Era (July 2026):
[W]e have developed a strategic vision of how we should adapt legal education to the AI era. That vision has three themes:
1. Developing AI-resilient pedagogy and assessment;
2. Elevating the “essential human” skills that distinguish excellent lawyers; and
3. Teaching the responsible, effective, and ethical use of AI. . . .
The Law School is implementing this vision through policies that apply to the major elements of the law school curriculum: required 1L core courses, 1L legal research and writing, elective courses, upper-level writing requirements, and clinical education. . . .
Across all 1L sections, we will prohibit the use of electronic devices such as laptops, tablets, and phones in the classroom. There will be some limited exceptions to this policy. . . . Additionally, examinations will be in-class without access to the internet, electronic files, or apps. And most of all, we will continue our longstanding tradition of emphasizing the Socratic Method as part of these courses. This coordinated approach reflects our experience, and an emerging scholarly consensus, that active, in-person engagement is conducive to learning. . . .
Related TaxProf Blog coverage:
- Beyond AI Literacy: Why The Future Of Legal Education Is Still Human-Based (July 8, 2026)
- Clinical Education and AI (July 1, 2026)
- McGinnis: AI and the Unbundling of Legal Education (June 28, 2026)
- Blackman: How to Assess AI-Aided Law Students? Oral Exams? (June 28, 2026)
- Is AI’s Law School Exam Performance Plateauing? (June 28, 2026)
- Deans Driving AI Innovation in Legal Education (June 24, 2026)
- Legal Education Existentialism, No. 2 (June 23, 2026)
- Salinas et al.: Law Professors Prefer AI over Peer Answers (June 6, 2026)
- Law Professors Prefer AI Answers (June 5, 2026)
- AI and Legal Education (May 20, 2026)
- Vibe Coding for Lawyers and Law Students (Apr. 25, 2026)
- Bloomberg: Why Polsinelli Lawyers Won’t Get Billing Credit for AI Training (Apr. 11, 2026)
- Bloomberg: Bridging the Gap: The New Realities of Law School and Legal Practice (Feb. 14, 2026)
- AI-Generated Legal Scholarship (Jan. 20, 2026)
- NY Times: UC-Berkeley Law School Cracks Down on AI (May 31, 2026)
