The Legal World’s Take on AI
Edited by Oleksandra Koliichuk
Introduction of AI in the Legal World
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly common worldwide. With its numerous benefits and potential consequences, one area has been especially impacted: the legal world. Courts, attorneys, law firms, and law schools have all expressed differing takes on AI. While some recognize the potential benefits AI has for the legal profession, others see that its misuse is too serious to overlook, ultimately threatening the public’s trust in our court systems.
The Courts’ Perspective
Informing courts and attorneys of AI’s potential benefits and consequences is crucial as society has begun to see incidents of AI misuse. For instance, a report was released about a Florida woman who was arrested and spent two days in jail due to her ex-boyfriend allegedly fabricating a string of fake texts (Ash). The charges were later dropped (Ash). Instances like this have sparked controversy over the use of generative AI and have drawn the attention of the Florida Supreme Court.
With generative AI’s continuous use and misuse, the Florida Supreme Court has “amended statewide court rules to require attorneys and self-represented litigants to certify that legal authorities cited in filings are accurate” (Killian). On May 28, 2026, the amended rules, approved by the court upon its own motion, in Case No. SC2026-0673, authorize judges to “impose sanctions for filings containing fabricated or inaccurately cited authorities” (Killian). This includes citations generated by AI that produce what courts consider “convincing but nonexistent,” along with legal analyses and quotations (Killian). Prior to this amendment, Florida circuit courts had differing requirements concerning AI. These amendments were adopted primarily to create a “statewide, uniform replacement for varied circuit court administrative orders imposing disclosure and certification requirements” regarding the use of AI in filings (Killian).
Specifically, the court amended the Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) (Representation by Signer) to state that when filing a document, the signer acknowledges and agrees that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited” (“Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515”). The court also amended rule 2.515(d)(2) to state that the court may impose sanctions for “any filing inconsistent with” this representation after providing the signer notice and an opportunity to be heard (“Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515”). These sanctions include “reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of the proceedings, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other sanctions” (“Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515”).
Board of Governors member Gordon Glover explained that the Florida Supreme Court has taken a thoughtful and balanced approach that “‘embraces innovation while preserving the profession’s core ethical duties’” (Killian). Glover further reinforced the idea that generative AI is a tool that should not be thought of as a substitute for professional judgment. While lawyers can benefit from AI, they must independently verify the accuracy of their court submissions (Killian).
Attorneys, Law Firms, and AI
Recent surveys from Thomson Reuters and LexisNexis show that “legal professionals have mixed feelings about the use of generative AI for legal work” (Westheimer). The majority of respondents in both surveys expressed optimism regarding the business potential of AI. In fact, many noted “improved productivity, increased profitability, and prospects for new sources of revenue,” all as feasible benefits of AI (Westheimer). John Villasenor, a professor of law, public policy, management, and electrical engineering at UCLA, stated that “‘law firms that effectively leverage emerging AI technologies will be able to offer services at a lower cost, higher efficiency, and with higher odds of favorable outcomes in litigation’” (Westheimer). He further explains that those law firms that fail “‘to capitalize on the power of AI will be unable to remain cost-competitive, losing clients, and undermining their ability to attract and retain talent’” (Westheimer).
However, while attorneys are recognizing the potential benefits of AI, there are still some concerns with its use. For instance, many fears remained about the disruption AI could cause to the industry. Approximately 88% of attorneys were concerned with the “ethical implications of using AI for their work” (Westheimer).
With these concerns and AI’s increasing presence, the Florida Bar’s Special Committee on AI Tools and Resources has been participating in weekly meetings to examine how generative AI interacts with the legal system, including current rules, court clerks, and various aspects of the law (Westheimer). One subcommittee focusing on the Rules of Professional Conduct has already submitted amendments to the Rules Committee, alerting Florida lawyers to their responsibilities regarding AI. This includes “considering safeguards when assistants use… AI” along with how AI can create potential risks for lawyers’ duty of confidentiality (Westheimer).
Law firms debating or already using AI technologies “should use a comprehensive compliance framework that embraces the Florida Bar Rules, but also addresses the compliance obligations of the business” of legal practice (Lazzarotti). To simplify, while The Florida Bar’s guidance on AI ethics is “invaluable,” attorneys and law firms must not mistakenly believe that compliance with “professional responsibility rules is sufficient” (Lazzarotti). Rather, these firms and lawyers must simultaneously navigate “ethics rules, privacy laws, contractual obligations, and industry-specific regulations” in order to help reduce financial, legal, and reputational risks (Lazzarotti).
AI in the Classroom
Law schools have also started to address AI’s impact on legal education. While some schools embrace AI, the University of Chicago Law School has begun to reconsider it. After OpenAI released ChatGPT in 2022, the University of Chicago School of Law began adjusting its teachings in response to AI, forming an AI committee in 2023 (“Rethinking Legal Education”). The school began releasing AI guidance and policies by creating a 1L legal writing and research program module introducing upper-level courses on AI and law, founding an AI lab, and negotiating licenses with AI companies to provide members of the school with the same resources as practicing attorneys (“Rethinking Legal Education”).
Over the last year, the University of Chicago has continued to reflect on how it should adapt its curriculum and policies in response to AI. Responses have consistently emphasized that the school must ensure students learn to think “critically, strategically, and independently, without relying on AI” while acknowledging the accessibility of AI tools to students (“Rethinking Legal Education”). As a result, the law school has begun implementing specific policies that apply to major elements of the law school curriculum. These include required 1L courses, required 1L research and writing, elective courses, upper-level writing requirements, and clinical education (“Rethinking Legal Education”).
In required 1L courses, the school will prohibit the use of electronic devices including laptops, tablets, and phones in the classroom, with limited exceptions. These exceptions include accommodations, specific tech-enabled activities upon the request of the professor, and designated classroom “scribes” (“Rethinking Legal Education”). In 1L Legal Research and Writing courses, Chicago Law has decided to prohibit the use of AI while writing, but will allow its use in certain aspects of the course, such as research and revision. This will enable students to develop their own writing skills while allowing them to gain experience in supervising AI and critiquing its work. In elective courses, the law school has decided to increase AI-resilient methods by focusing on group projects, oral presentations, and peer-to-peer feedback.
Regarding upper-level writing courses, the University of Chicago School of Law will be adding new requirements to its substantial research paper (SRP). While the SRP roughly includes substantial length, independent research, incorporative feedback from faculty, iteration across drafts, and original ideas, students will now also be required to engage in an “oral discussion with their supervising professor, in an in-person setting” (“Rethinking Legal Education”).
Lastly, with regard to clinical education, students are learning how to handle practical situations with clients in practice settings. This includes being able to immediately “use AI responsibly, effectively, and ethically” (“Rethinking Legal Education”). Thus, clinics are essential for students learning “with, without, and about AI,” providing access to AI tools in clinics with specific policies. Each clinic will have its own policies regarding the proper use of AI and help identify safeguards against “AI-created errors in court filings and other work” (“Rethinking Legal Education”).
AI and the Future
As generative AI continues to grow and become embedded within society, opinions about its use remain divided. The legal profession is one major industry that has felt AI's impact and continues to change as issues emerge and precedents form. Courts, attorneys, law firms, and law schools have all provided differing perspectives on AI. While some believe AI will increase profit and efficiency, others argue that restrictions must be put in place to protect legal accuracy and the abilities of students and professionals learning about and practicing in the legal field. AI is an indispensable technology that will continue to shape society. Understanding its benefits and consequences will help prepare society for the changes to come.