The University of Chicago Law School will prohibit first‑year law students from using laptops, tablets and phones during required 1L courses beginning this fall as part of a comprehensive new strategy to adapt legal education to the rise of artificial intelligence. The policy—announced in the law school’s “Rethinking Legal Education in the AI Era” statement—also mandates in‑class, offline exams and creates space for faculty experimentation with AI policies in upper‑level courses.
Why the ban: protecting core legal skills and academic integrity
School leaders framed the device restrictions as a measure to ensure students “learn to think critically, strategically, and independently” before they are taught how to use AI tools responsibly in later coursework. The law school’s AI strategy emphasizes three pillars: developing AI‑resilient pedagogy and assessment, elevating “essential human” skills that distinguish excellent lawyers, and teaching responsible, effective, and ethical AI use.cbsnews+2
How the ban will work in practice
-
Classroom rule: Across all required 1L sections (constitutional law, torts, property and similar core classes), electronic devices will be banned by default, with limited exceptions for designated “classroom scribes” or specific pedagogical needs.
-
Exams and assessment: Examinations in these courses will be administered in‑person without internet access, electronic files or apps to prevent AI‑assisted work during exams.
-
Faculty flexibility: Faculty may set different rules for elective courses and are encouraged to pilot AI policies and AI‑integrated assignments in upper‑level classes after students have built foundational skills.
-
Accommodations and exceptions: The school indicated there will be accommodations for students with disabilities and other limited exceptions where technology use is pedagogically necessary.
Context: a wave of AI pushback in legal education
UChicago’s move follows other law‑school responses to AI. For example, UC Berkeley Law enacted strict limits on students’ use of generative AI for assessed work—prohibiting AI for brainstorming, outlining, summarizing legal rules for papers, and even grammar correction—while still allowing some AI uses as tutoring and offering courses on AI proficiency. The pattern reflects growing concern across legal education about how generative AI may undermine skill development and academic integrity if left unchecked.
Arguments in favour: teaching judgement, not shortcuts
Proponents of the ban argue that early legal training must prioritize human judgment, oral advocacy, doctrinal reasoning and the Socratic method over convenience that could be enabled by AI. Law school leaders point to faculty and classroom pilots where limiting device use reportedly improved participation and discussion, supporting the claim that reduced screen reliance can strengthen analytical habits. The policy’s supporters also stress that the school plans to teach students responsible, ethical AI use—so the ban is framed as a staged approach, not outright rejection of technology.
Criticisms and practical concerns
Critics warn the ban risks being symbolic rather than effective, may be difficult to enforce uniformly, and could disadvantage students who rely on technology for note‑taking or accessibility. Some commentators see stringent device bans as part of an emerging “AI backlash” in higher education that may underplay the inevitability of AI tools in legal practice; they argue law schools should focus on teaching how to evaluate and supervise AI outputs rather than restricting access.
What enforcement and precedent look like
University of Chicago Law’s dean has said he is not aware of another major law school instituting a blanket first‑year laptop and phone ban, positioning UChicago’s policy as among the more restrictive approaches in American legal education. The school will pilot the rules in the 2026–2027 academic year and allow faculty to experiment with alternate approaches for electives, creating a testing ground for what the institution calls “AI‑resilient pedagogy.”
Implications for legal practice and pedagogy
The ban signals a broader reassessment of assessment design, classroom pedagogy and professional training in an era when paralegals, associates and law firms increasingly use AI for document drafting, research and client communications. Law schools face a dual challenge: ensuring graduates can perform core tasks unaided while also preparing them to integrate AI responsibly into modern practice—an educational balancing act UChicago’s strategy explicitly tries to address
