The rapid rise of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Co-Pilot, Claude, Grok, and DeepSeek has sparked a transformative debate in higher education, particularly in the field of legal studies. How should universities approach the integration of these tools into teaching and learning? Should they embrace GenAI as a tool for innovation, or ban it outright to protect academic integrity? This blog post explores these questions by examining the divergent approaches of two universities and their impact on teaching practices, student learning outcomes, and academic integrity.
The Research Question and Hypothesis
This study addresses a key question: How do differing approaches to AI tools, specifically ChatGPT, in legal education—particularly in business and commercial law modules—impact teaching practices, student learning outcomes, and academic integrity?
The hypothesis tested is that structured integration of GenAI into teaching enhances critical thinking and ethical understanding in students, while outright bans may lead to unintended consequences, such as unregulated use of the technology. By comparing the experiences of two universities in England—one that embraced GenAI and another that prohibited it—this research sheds light on the opportunities and challenges of integrating AI into legal education.
Two Universities, Two Approaches
The study examines the contrasting approaches of University A and University B in England in integrating GenAI tools like ChatGPT into their legal education programs during the academic year 2023-2024. I keep the names of these universities anonymous.
At University A, faculty members proactively integrated GenAI tools into teaching and learning activities while requiring students to declare the use of GenAI in their assessments. For example, students used ChatGPT along with other GenAI tools to generate legal opinions and critically evaluated the responses, comparing them to established legal principles and case law. This structured engagement helped students identify GenAI’s limitations, such as its inability to provide fact-specific legal analysis or nuanced interpretations of legal texts. Students also became aware of risks like “hallucinations”—instances where AI tools generate fake or fabricated references that mimic genuine case law, textbooks, and research articles.
Despite access to GenAI tools, most students chose not to rely on them for assessments, recognizing their inability to generate the depth of analysis required in legal evaluations. Instead, the students appreciated the importance of critical thinking and deep legal analysis, which GenAI tools could not replicate.
In contrast, University B adopted a restrictive stance, banning the use of GenAI tools in academic activities. The policy was driven by concerns over academic integrity, with administrators fearing that students might misuse GenAI tools like ChatGPT to complete assignments dishonestly.
However, the ban did not prevent students from experimenting with GenAI outside the classroom. In fact, several cases of the inappropriate use of GenAI in assessments were reported. Without institutional guidance, students relied on GenAI tools for personal study, leading to mixed outcomes. Some students became overly reliant on AI-generated answers, which lacked depth and accuracy. Others used the tools effectively but discreetly, without the benefit of structured guidance. Faculty at University B expressed frustration over the difficulty of monitoring and enforcing the ban, as well as missed opportunities to teach responsible GenAI use.
Key Findings
The study reveals several important insights. First, structured integration enhances learning. At University A, students developed a nuanced understanding of GenAI’s strengths and limitations. They learned to use the tools responsibly while recognising the irreplaceable value of human reasoning in legal analysis.
Second, prohibition leads to unregulated use. University B’s ban did not prevent students from using GenAI tools informally. Without guidance, students were left to navigate the ethical and practical challenges of AI on their own, often with mixed results.
Finally, critical thinking is key. Both approaches highlight the importance of fostering critical thinking and evaluation skills in legal education. GenAI tools, while powerful, cannot fully replicate the depth of human reasoning required in legal analysis.
Recommendations for Legal Education
Based on these findings, the study offers several recommendations for integrating GenAI tools into legal education.
First, universities should establish clear guidelines that promote the ethical and responsible use of GenAI, emphasising academic integrity, critical thinking, and professional ethics.
Second, faculty development programmes should equip educators with the skills to effectively incorporate GenAI into their teaching practices. This includes designing activities that maximise educational benefits while addressing ethical concerns.
Third, universities should provide opportunities for students to engage with GenAI tools in structured settings. For example, students could use ChatGPT to draft preliminary legal arguments, followed by peer review sessions to identify errors, verify references, and propose improvements. Workshops could teach students how to critically evaluate AI-generated content, fostering a deeper understanding of its limitations and potential applications.
The study underscores the importance of preparing students for an increasingly AI-driven professional landscape. By engaging with GenAI tools in a structured and guided manner, students develop the skills needed to navigate the ethical and practical challenges of using AI in legal practice.
Rather than fearing or banning these tools, universities should embrace them as opportunities to enhance learning and prepare students for the future. As the legal profession continues to evolve, competency in using GenAI tools will become an essential skill for the next generation of legal professionals.
Conclusion
The integration of GenAI tools like ChatGPT and DeepSeek into legal education presents both opportunities and challenges. While these tools cannot replace the depth of human reasoning, they can serve as valuable aids in teaching and learning when used responsibly. By fostering critical thinking, ethical understanding, and structured engagement, universities can prepare students to thrive in an AI-driven world.
The findings of this study call for a forward-looking approach to GenAI in legal education—one that balances innovation with ethical responsibility and prepares students for the future of legal practice.
