A recent survey conducted by Juris Education, a leading law school admissions counseling firm, revealed that nearly 40% of aspiring lawyers believe that artificial intelligence (AI) tools can help improve their mental health during the law school application process and when entering the legal profession. The study interviewed 248 master’s of law students from across the United States.
Research shows that even routine, non-substantive tasks can drain psychological resources and contribute significantly to lawyer burnout. When used responsibly and in accordance with solid policies and professional regulations, AI can support mental health by reducing the cognitive load of daily tasks. According to Stanford Law, businesses, courts, and clinics are already using AI tools to:
- conduct or assist in legal investigations;
- drafting terms and conditions, contracts, deposition questions, witness statements, and other documents;
- Work as a legal assistant for a lawyer
But despite these rapid changes, we need to stop and ask whether current students feel prepared for such rapid changes. Are law schools preemptively implementing changes to their current curricula so that future lawyers can really experience the benefits of AI when it comes to mental health and a balanced workload as a lawyer? As a pioneer in both legal education and AI development, Stanford University should take the lead in improving the quality of life of law students during and after school.
Some law schools, including Stanford University, are embracing the intersection of AI and law head-on. For example, the Legal Innovation through Frontier Technology Lab (LIFTLAB) partners with law firms and technology companies to create and test AI tools for legal services. The Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Professional investigates how AI is reshaping legal practice, professional responsibility, and access to justice. Stanford Law also recognizes the ethical challenges associated with the use of AI in the legal field. As a result, the center teaches students to study and critically engage with topics such as the use of AI in administrative law and constitutional law, the regulation of emerging technologies, and the ethics of generative AI through specialized courses and practicums.
Other law schools should use this as a blueprint for comprehensively integrating AI into their curricula, giving students the opportunity to experiment with the technology early on while also exploring and understanding its pitfalls and limitations.
The Juris Education survey also found that 46% of respondents felt overwhelmed “often”, especially during the law school application cycle. As a result, nearly one-third of students considered therapy “very often.” While relying on AI tools for “therapy,” two in five aspiring lawyers were reluctant to share details of their mental health struggles with an AI, although 13% still did so.
The stress surrounding law school begins before your application is submitted. Many law schools’ vague policies regarding the use of AI in applications create further confusion and uncertainty for students. Law schools can change this by ethically incorporating AI into the admissions process.
For example, the University of Michigan Law School and the University of Miami Law School have introduced AI-based essay questions that require applicants to use tools such as ChatGPT. These essays are designed to assess AI literacy and ethical reasoning and suggest that schools may begin to formally incorporate AI into their admissions processes, rather than police it.
Such integration would allow law schools to model for students the real world of law, where AI is a ubiquitous reality, and could alleviate some of the stress students have about applying to law school.
Admissions policies are just one piece of the puzzle. Students’ mental health concerns continue even after they enter law school, highlighting the importance of comprehensive support programs even on campus. Law schools need to strengthen mental health resources for students, ensure access to treatment, and address associated stigma. At the same time, law schools and counseling centers can also work together to provide guided, supervised, AI-assisted services for low-risk tasks, i.e., services that involve human supervision. For example, Butler University and the University of Houston have partnered with a 24/7 AI tool called Wayhaven to provide personalized wellness coaching, proven to reduce depression and anxiety.
Law schools have an important responsibility to develop handbooks on the prudent use of AI in the legal field. Institutions like Stanford Law could create guilt-free policies regarding the use of AI, but limit the use of AI to specific tasks or parts of courses in each year of law school to avoid over-reliance and “psychedelic content” and to encourage creative and critical thinking.
Stanford Law students must also play an active role in this transition. They must not be afraid to call for clearer policies on the use of AI, engage in healthy discussions with various clubs and governments about the fair use of AI, and use their voice to demand better mental health resources beyond what AI tools can adequately provide.
The purpose of the Juris Education investigation was not to warn law schools or students. Rather, it offers us a timely opportunity to prepare the next generation of lawyers for the inevitable world of AI. Institutions like Stanford Law have the power to shape guidelines for other law schools in the country and should deploy them to help students leverage AI as a complement to their real-world skills, judgment, and mental health.
Arush Chandna is the co-founder of Juris Education, an edtech startup in the legal education space.
