I
recently
wrote
a
piece
bemoaning
the
lack
of
critical
thinking
skills
among
younger
lawyers
in
the
age
of
GenAI
and
wondering
how
the
profession
can
hope
to
train
lawyers
to
have
these
skills.
I
wondered
whether
the
repetitive,
tedious
work
that
young
lawyer
traditionally
had
to
do
created
experienced
lawyers
who
could
recognize
patterns
and
solutions
due
to
the
exposure
to
multiple
situations
over
their
career.
I
also
wondered
what
would
happen
to
that
wisdom
through
experience
when
that
repetitive
work
was
done
by
GenAI
tools.
What
will
happen
to
the
ability
to
“think
like
a
lawyer”
in
a
world
where
so
many
tasks
are
now
done
with
GenAI
and
automation?
After
reading
a
recent
interview
of
the
economist
Tyler
Cowen,
I
believe
law
schools
need
to
play
a
greater
role
in
developing
GenAI
skills
to
facilitate
the
development
of
that
wisdom.
Cowen
is
a
professor
at
George
Mason
University.
Cowen’s
Arguments
Cowen
persuasively
argues
that
colleges
and
the
broader
education
system
are
simply
failing
to
adapt
to
the
demands
of
an
AI
world.
He
believes
that
education
should
focus
on
teaching
students
how
to
effectively
use
AI,
instead
of
thinking
of
ways
to
force
them
to
avoid
it.
He
also
thinks
in
the
future
those
without
AI
skills
will
have
a
difficult
time
getting
a
job
and
advancing.
In
particular,
Cowen
believes
educational
institutions
should
double
down
on
teaching
how
to
use
AI
tools
instead
of
focusing
on
things
like
rote
homework
(what
purpose
is
there
of
giving
homework
assignments
that
ChatGPT
can
do
instantaneously)
and
rote
memorizations
(I
thought
about
this
as
I
watched
my
grandson
struggle
with
doing
math
problems
when
the
answer
could
be
found
on
a
smart
phone
calculator).
Instead,
Cowen
says
we
should
prioritize
critical
thinking,
creativity,
adaptability,
and
individualized
guidance,
qualities
that
AI
cannot
replace
(yet).
As
an
example
of
this
kind
of
thinking,
OpenAI
recently
introduced
Study
Mode
that
instead
of
giving
students
answers,
forces
them
to
think
through
problems
and
come
up
with
answers.
It
employs
things
like
the
Socratic
method
and
personalized
hints
designed
to
guide
students
to
come
up
with
their
own
answers.
It
is
designed
to
teach
students
how
to
think
critically.
For
example,
instead
of
my
grandson
trying
use
pen
and
paper
to
solve
the
math
problem
of
what
is
7×8
through
memory,
it
would
ask
him
what
does
7
times
8
mean
in
words.
In
a
legal
context,
instead
of
asking
students
to
memorize
the
elements
of
negligence,
it
might
ask
them
to
identify
what’s
missing
from
a
fact
pattern
to
establish
a
prima
facie
case.”
It
is
exactly
this
kind
of
tool
Cowen
would
think
educational
institutions
need
to
apply.
Law
Schools
These
insights
have
particular
urgency
for
legal
education.
Indeed,
most
of
Cowen’s
criticisms
and
suggested
changes
need
to
be
front
and
center
for
law
school
leaders.
It’s
naïve
to
think
that
law
student
and
lawyers
aren’t
going
to
use
GenAI
tools
in
virtually
every
aspect
of
their
professional
and
personal
lives.
Rather
than
avoiding
the
subject
or
worse
yet
trying
to
stop
use
of
these
tools,
law
schools
should
make
GenAI
tools
a
fundamental
part
of
research,
writing
and
drafting
training.
They
need
to
focus
not
on
memorization
but
on
the
critical
thinking
skills
beginning
lawyers
used
to
get
in
the
on-the-job
training
guild
type
system.
As
I
discussed,
that
training
came
from
repetitive
and
often
tedious
work
that
developed
experienced
lawyers
who
could
recognize
patterns
and
solutions
based
on
the
exposure
to
similar
situations.
But
much
of
that
repetitive
and
tedious
work
may
go
away
in
a
GenAI
world.
The
Socratic
Method
As
OpenAI’s
Study
Mode
demonstrates,
the
Socratic
method
which
law
schools
have
leaned
into
for
years
could
be
ideal
for
just
this
type
of
training,
if
done
right.
Doing
it
right
in
the
age
of
GenAI
means
not
asking
for
the
regurgitation
of
facts
and
holdings,
but
asking,
for
example,
how
a
GenAI
summary
does
or
does
not
tease
out
the
critical
portion
of
a
case
and
the
nuance
of
the
holding.
Or
asking
students
to
generate
a
list
of
potential
issues
demonstrated
by
a
factual
scenario
using
GenAI
and
then
discussing
what
the
tool
got
right
and
what
it
may
have
gotten
wrong
and
why.
It’s
asking
students
to
generate
an
argument
using
ChatGPT
and
then
discussing
what’s
missing.
Law
schools
need
to
focus
on
requiring
students
to
disclose
and
explain
when
and
how
they
use
GenAI.
And
show
them
what
is
right
and
wrong
with
GenAI
outputs.
The
Role
of
Adjunct
Professors
But
to
do
this,
law
schools
need
to
better
partner
with
actual
practicing
lawyers
who
can
serve
as
adjunct
professors.
Law
schools
need
to
do
away
with
the
notion
that
adjuncts
are
second-class
teachers.
Practicing
lawyers
can
supply
that
additional
insight
that
full-time
professors
can’t
because
they
lack
the
experience.
Indeed,
in
the
publish
or
perish
world
of
law
school
tenure,
the
temptation
to
use
GenAI
to
create
law
review
tomes
could
lead
to
professors
doing
just
what
we
want
young
lawyers
to
avoid:
overreliance
on
GenAI
instead
of
critical
thinking
and
creativity.
It
is
the
experienced
lawyers,
those
with
the
accumulated
wisdom,
who
are
best
equipped
to
spot
things
GenAI
tools
may
have
missed.
Who
can
spot
flaws
in
a
chatbot’s
reasoning.
Who
can
separate
the
wheat
from
the
chaff.
By
working
with
and
mentoring
law
school
students
on
these
kinds
of
things,
they
can
begin
to
impart
these
abilities.
Certainly,
the
academia
v.
practical
debate
has
been
going
on
ever
since
I
was
in
law
school.
But
the
importance
of
the
practical
has
changed
with
the
advent
of
GenAI.
GenAI
provides
the
means
to
gain
access
to
information
in
ways
never
before
imagined.
The
trick
is
to
harness
that
information
and
that
requires
practical
guidance
not
esoteric
discussion.
But
Will
They?
Cowen
makes
one
other
disturbing
point:
he
fears
educational
institutions
will
continue
through
inertia
to
employ
traditional
outmoded
methods
that
don’t
prepare
students
for
the
brave
new
world.
I
fear
that
these
concerns
are
magnified
when
it
comes
to
law
schools.
Law
schools,
like
most
lawyers,
are
slow
to
change.
Law
schools
have
a
developed
system
that
focuses
more
on
academic
questions,
scholarship,
and
prestige
than
practicality.
But
GenAI
is
here
to
stay
and
we,
as
a
profession,
have
to
teach
ourselves
and
younger
lawyers
how
to
practically
use
the
tools
and
still
think
crucially.
Adopting
these
approaches
at
the
law
school
level
would
better
assure
all
lawyers
understand
how
to
effectively
use
these
tools,
not
just
those
lawyers
who
go
to
work
at
a
big
firm
which
has
the
resources
to
do
this
type
of
training.
Indeed,
some
law
schools
are
recognizing
these
various
facts
and
offering
courses
on
using
AI,
how
to
teach
legal
reasoning
to
AI
models,
and
the
like.
But
the
effort
needs
to
integrate
GenAI
in
every
law
school
class.
Law
schools
should
start
by
requiring
AI
literacy
courses
for
all
first-year
students
and
mandating
that
every
course
syllabus
include
assignments
that
explicitly
incorporates
AI
tools.
In
the
age
of
AI,
there
is
no
course
that
should
not
include
training
and
adoption
of
the
tools
with
a
look
toward
the
future.
GenAI
gives
the
concept
of
training
law
students
to
think
like
a
lawyer
a
whole
new
meaning.
Law
schools
have
a
responsibility
to
their
students
to
play
a
crucial
role
in
this
evolution.
They
can’t
shuck
it
off
for
old
times’
sake.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.