The ABA and its Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence surveyed 29 law school deans or faculty members between late December and mid-February, finding that law schools are increasingly integrating AI into their coursework, with 55% of the respondents reporting that they offer classes dedicated to AI, according to the results.
What's more, 83% of those surveyed reported that their schools offered curricular opportunities, including clinics and workshops, where students can learn how to effectively use AI tools, including in legal writing, litigation drafting and legal analytics, the results state.
"The survey suggests that AI is already having a significant impact on legal education and is likely to result in additional changes in the years ahead," the ABA said in a statement Monday. "With a majority of responding law schools offering dedicated AI courses and providing opportunities for students to engage with AI tools, it is evident that legal education is evolving to meet the demands of a profession increasingly shaped by technological advancements."
Nearly 70% of the respondents reported that their institutions have updated their academic integrity policies in response to generative AI, with many law schools prohibiting the use of AI tools in academic work without the explicit permission of the course instructor, according to the results.
Some institutions have implemented policies that require students to disclose if they have used generative AI in their work, while many schools have also clarified that work produced by AI is considered the work of another under existing definitions of plagiarism, the results state.
And 93% of the responding law schools are considering changes to their curriculum as the legal profession increases its use of AI, according to the results.
"The survey indicates a trend towards integrating AI literacy across various legal disciplines, from legal writing to clinical practice, suggesting a broader acknowledgment that familiarity with AI tools and concepts is becoming essential for future legal professionals," the ABA said.
"The proactive measures taken by many law schools to update academic integrity policies and consider curriculum changes demonstrate a commitment to preparing students for the challenges and opportunities presented by AI in the legal landscape," it said.
The ABA is not the only entity interested in how AI will affect the legal system.
Last month, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero created a task force to look into how generative AI could benefit the court system and its users, while also evaluating its potential risks.
The judicial branch task force will be responsible for overseeing the development of any court system actions that address generative AI technology, including rules of court, technology policies and legislative proposals.
But the use of AI in the legal industry has been a touchy subject, as attorneys and courts grapple with balancing its benefits and its potential to introduce bloopers.
Donald Trump's former "fixer" Michael Cohen and his attorney avoided sanctions in March after providing fictional cases generated by Google's AI service to support a motion in Cohen's criminal case. U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman called the citations "embarrassing and certainly negligent" but determined they were not the product of bad faith.
Other attorneys, however, have not been so lucky.
That same month, a Florida federal judge suspended a Fort Lauderdale-based attorney from practicing law in the Middle District of Florida for one year after he fabricated cases listed on court documents that may have resulted from his use of AI.
A Massachusetts judge put the state's legal bar on notice of the dangers of trusting AI by sanctioning an attorney $2,000 for filing court papers full of realistic-sounding but fictitious case citations.
A pair of New York personal injury attorneys were sanctioned last June for submitting a brief written by AI that cited nonexistent cases, and a Texas appeals court overruled an appellant's bid for pretrial release or a reduction to his $400,000 bail after finding that the "illogical" filing prepared by his attorney included citations to cases that do not exist.
--Additional reporting by James Mills, Brian Dowling and Hailey Konnath. Editing by Michael Watanabe.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
