Starting this fall, first-year students at UNLV School of Law will be required to take a new class on the use of artificial intelligence in legal practice, the university announced Tuesday.
The course, titled “Introduction to the Responsible Use of AI,” will teach law students how and when to use AI as a tool to enhance legal practice, rather than relying on technology to replace legal analysis, according to a news release from the UNLV Boyd School of Law.
“What sets our law school apart is how committed we are to truly preparing students to become effective lawyers,” said UNLV School of Law Assistant Professor Joe Regalia, co-leader of the one-credit class. “If we take the effort seriously,[AI]should become part of the curriculum going forward.”
Regalia said he sees the new course as a major change to the mandatory law curriculum at UNLV, Nevada’s only law school. He added that UNLV plans to offer more advanced coursework on the use of AI in legal settings to law school students by spring 2027.
The use of AI is already widespread among UNLV law students, said Dionne Stanfill, former president of the UNLV Student Bar Association and a graduate of Boyd Law School this month. She and others often use the technology to study and work on high-density case briefings, she said.
“I don’t know a single student who isn’t using AI,” Stanfill said.
Professor Stanfill said he believes AI is a tool that can help lawyers become more efficient and believes the new UNLV class is a recognition by the university of AI as a future mainstay of the legal industry.
“We’re going to charge less customers and we’re going to have more customers,” Stanfill said. “It’s almost like a bad habit not to use it.”
The use of AI in law is “not a fad”
Lawyers and judges who spoke to the Las Vegas Review-Journal said they believe the new class will be valuable to young law students, but remain skeptical about the use of AI in the legal profession.
District Judge Tara Clark Newberry said that while AI was not used, the class was a great idea to prepare law students for a future where technology becomes more commonplace.
“This is not a fad,” Clark-Newberry said. “It will become increasingly prevalent, so there needs to be an ethical and responsible way to incorporate it into the practice of law that provides sufficient assurance of reliability.”
Clark-Newberry said the main way she’s noticed AI being used in courtrooms is in court filings, citing hallucinations or cases that don’t exist.. She added that such incidents are rare and that she can only recall three incidents in the past two years.
“There’s nothing inherently wrong with the use of AI; it’s just a matter of whether it’s making the right decisions, how trustworthy it is, and whether it’s held accountable and accountable for errors,” Clark-Newberry said.
The idea of a law class on the responsible use of AI is a good idea to District Judge Timothy Williams, but he said lawyers need to set clear limits on what AI can be used for.
He said AI should only be used as a tool and not as a replacement for law students’ need to develop critical thinking skills.
“I think it might be helpful for young lawyers to give them a general idea about a particular subject, but at the end of the day, they have to read cases,” Williams said. “There is no substitute for good old-fashioned legal research and writing, at least not yet.”
Williams said he does not use AI, saying it would “probably be a waste of time” to introduce it, and said he was not aware of much use of AI in the courtroom.
But about once or twice a month, Williams said, he receives an AI-generated complaint from someone who isn’t backed by a professional litigator or lawyer. He called the allegations “woefully inadequate” as these complaints often lack material facts and basis for their claims.
“The law is very complex, so that’s where AI falls short at this point,” Williams said. “Maybe it will point you in the right direction…The AI might give you an idea or give you some examples, but you have to go out and check if those sources are correct.”
He added: “AI cannot replace a good lawyer.”
“It’s going to look like a crack.”
Required classes on AI in law schools appear to be new as more legal professionals use the technology.
Reuters reported in September that at least eight law schools are now incorporating AI training for first-year students, and a Northwestern University survey released this year found that more than 60% of more than 500 federal judges surveyed said they use at least one AI tool in their work.
Among those in the legal industry using AI is Rob Murdoch, who has been a lawyer since 1990. Murdoch said he frequently handles medical malpractice cases and uses AI to conduct extensive research on niche medical procedures and quickly summarize thousands of pages of medical records.
But Murdoch said he took the results of AI as a starting point rather than gospel, as AI can overgeneralize facts and provide misinformation. “We go back and look at each record,” Murdock said. “I think it’s a great way to start a lawsuit.”
Professor Murdoch said he believed AI would be used in the legal field for a long time, but was concerned that law students could misuse the technology if appropriate use was not reinforced across law schools.
Robert Langford, a trial lawyer for 37 years, said he doesn’t use AI because he prefers the traditional filing process, which helps him remember cases better. Still, Langford believes UNLV’s new class is a necessary part of modern legal ethics education because of its far-reaching impact on legal practice.
“(AI) is going to be a great tool in a lawyer’s toolbox, but it has the potential to be misused in the real world,” Langford said. “They need to start teaching young lawyers up front that AI may not be all there is to be policed.”
Langford said he was concerned that artificial intelligence could create false evidence, such as doctored photos, that could be submitted to court with undetected alterations.
“It’s equally important to consider the ethics of what evidence to bring into court and the responsibilities of trial attorneys in doing so,” Langford said. “Now is the time to do that as we deploy all the AI tools.”
Langford said he is skeptical about how much time AI can really save when it comes to lawyers’ workloads. Despite the concerns, he acknowledged that AI is likely to stay in the legal profession.
“Sadly, it’s going to be a rift,” Langford said of the future use of AI in legal practice. “I think we’re going to get even stupider as a result. The old man in me thinks that with every day that passes, we’re a year closer to stupidity.”
Contact Spencer Levering at slevering@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0253.
