Come fall, first-year students at the University of Chicago Law School will be prohibited from using electronic devices like laptops, tablets and phones in the classroom throughout the 2026-27 academic year. The new policy comes as artificial intelligence continues to affect the higher education landscape and schools grapple with how to handle the ever-evolving technology.
The policies aim to foster what the law school is calling “AI-resilient teaching and assessment” across the school’s first-year law core classes, including civil procedure, torts and constitutional law, among others, according to a statement posted by the university.
Students can also expect for examinations to be taken in class without access to the internet, electronic files, or apps.
“This coordinated approach reflects our experience, and an emerging scholarly consensus, that active, in-person engagement is conducive to learning,” the release stated. “Reliance on devices to take notes or assist with answering questions tends to inhibit reflection and reasoning.”
There will be some potential exceptions to the deviceless classroom policy, however, the school said. Professors can opt to designate students as classroom “scribes” and allow them to use electronic devices to take notes for the class as well as authorize the use of devices for “specific tech-enabled activities,” the release states.
The policy changes also do not mean an entire outcasting of AI for the school.
Going forward, AI usage could fluctuate class to class as students learn how to use it as a tool, according to the statement. In the first-year legal research and writing class, for example, students will write without AI but use it for “research, revision, iterating on drafts and preparation for oral argument.” This way, students will develop their own writing skills independent of AI and also learn to monitor and critique the technology.
In other first-year elective courses, instructors are encouraged to experiment with how they include AI in their curriculum. Among those are courses that focus intentionally on the use of AI and AI tools for legal work, according to the statement. The school’s upper level writing courses and clinical education will also monitor the responsible use of AI and AI tools.
Law schools across the country are trying to figure out a balance in the classroom when it comes to AI usage and traditional learning.
With policies like U. of C.’s in place, students are able to have a strong understanding of law school practices and then use AI as an aid, Kellye Testy, executive director and chief executive officer of the Association of American Law Schools, told the Tribune.
This is especially important for the first year of law school, where students face rigorous learning and critical thinking, she added.
“At the end of the day, what clients really want from us is judgment and reasoning and problem-solving, and we have to learn enough first about how to think about legal problems to be able to know even what to feed into an AI tool to get the best result,” Testy said. “Finding that balance for the legal profession is really critical, so that we don’t lose what the public most needs from us, which is really rigorous problem-solving skills.”
The law schools’ decision also comes as the legal profession is grappling with the challenges, benefits and ethics of using AI.
Currently, AI is mostly used in the legal field for time-saving reasons, like addressing and compiling large volumes of data and information, Testy said. But recent lawsuits are raising questions about the parameters and errors of popular AI tools such as ChatGPT in the legal system.
This month, a federal judge in Chicago is weighing a motion to dismiss a closely watched case in which an insurance company sued ChatGPT’s parent, OpenAI, for practicing law without a license.
Nippon Life Insurance claims it has been buried in litigation since Graciela Dela Torre, who, unhappy with how her disability claim was settled, used a ChatGPT robot to resurrect her case with a slew of legal filings that cost the insurer roughly $300,000 to defend. According to Nippon, ChatGPT “aided and abetted” Dela Torre’s ‘abuse’ of the judicial process.”
In another clash of AI and the legal system, law firm Goldberg Segalla was hired to represent the Chicago Housing Authority as it attempted in 2025 to appeal a jury’s ruling to pay $24 million to two people. But the firm used ChatGPT in a post-trial motion and cited a nonexistent court case. Goldberg Segalla has since implemented “firm-wide measures to re-educate its attorneys” on its AI use policy and “established preventative measures,” the firm shared in court. It also fired attorney Danielle Malaty, whom the court later sanctioned for improperly using AI in a separate case, the Tribune reported.
Worries raised by AI use in the legal field are “for good reason,” especially when there’s a potential for errors, Testy said. However, she added that amid the fast-changing and imperfect AI field, the systems need to be used as a tool and a step in the legal process, not the last or only step. Still, as the field evolves, schools are approaching AI with not just caution but excitement in its potential ability to help in “delivering justice,” she said.
“I think our law schools are excited about the potential it has to reach more, to do more service because there is an access to justice gap in our world,” Testy said. “And so, if lawyers could use evolving technologies to serve even more clients and to help more people, then that’s a good thing.”
Meanwhile at U. of C., AI tools are set to become more accessible across campus as the school partners with Anthropic to provide Claude Enterprise for all academics, staff and students come fall, including tools like Claude Chat, Cowork and Code for those who want to use them.
With the welcoming of those tools, however, students and faculty were still reminded by school President Paul Alivisatos to approach AI skeptically, ethically and ambitiously, with him writing in a statement that the new features aim to “ultimately strengthen the University for the better.”
“In some cases, it is clear that AI tools can be brought to bear with the desired results. In others, we will do better by retaining our previous approaches or even developing new policies to expressly protect against misuse,” Alivisatos wrote. “In all cases, our highest priority in making these tools available is to center our respect and commitment to each individual human being who is part of this community.”
