"AI is not replacing legal judgment. It is exposing how little of it we explicitly teach. The findings draw on quantitative engagement data and qualitative interviews conducted throughout the course."
"Judgment is assumed to emerge along the way. The strongest learning gains occurred when the AI explained why an answer mattered in context, not simply whether it was correct."
"When feedback connected legal analysis to business impact, stakeholder priorities, or downstream consequences, students retained more and engaged more deeply."
Legal education and law firms face anxiety over AI's role in legal judgment. AI is not replacing judgment but highlighting deficiencies in teaching it. Empirical pilots using an AI legal coach showed that students develop judgment-based skills when AI explains the context of answers. The focus on correctness in training overlooks the importance of teaching judgment explicitly. Strong learning gains occurred when AI connected legal analysis to business impact, leading to deeper engagement and retention among students.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]