US Law Schools Split on AI: Laptop Bans vs. Mandatory Training

American law schools are implementing sharply divergent strategies for handling artificial intelligence in the classroom, with some institutions banning laptops entirely while others mandate AI coursework, according to reporting by Reuters.

At least a dozen US law schools introduced new or revised AI policies over the summer of 2026, reflecting widespread uncertainty about how to balance traditional legal education with preparation for a rapidly evolving profession. The University of Chicago Law School became the first to prohibit laptops and phones from required first-year classes in July, aiming to ensure students "learn to think critically, strategically, and independently without relying on AI" before introducing the technology later in their education.

Meanwhile, the University of Georgia law school adopted an "analog classroom" policy in August that defaults to device bans while simultaneously requiring students to complete at least one AI-related technology course. Dean Usha Rodrigues told Reuters the policy emerged partly from reports of students consulting AI during traditional Socratic cold-calling exercises.

Why it matters

Law schools face unique pressure because lawyers carry professional obligations around competency and confidentiality that directly affect how they can use AI tools. With law firms racing to integrate AI into practice and employers now expecting graduates to have basic AI familiarity, schools must prepare students for a transformed profession while ensuring they develop core analytical skills that can't be outsourced to chatbots. Getting this balance wrong could produce lawyers who either lack fundamental reasoning abilities or enter practice unprepared for the tools they'll be expected to use.

Restrictive vs. permissive approaches

The University of California, Berkeley School of Law unveiled particularly strict rules in May, barring students from using AI to brainstorm paper topics, summarize legal rules, or even correct grammar. The school's student-run AI club criticized the policy in a statement to Reuters, arguing it contradicts Berkeley's positioning as a technology law leader and that "there's a difference between outsourcing legal reasoning to AI and using AI as a tool within a legal workflow."

Berkeley Law professor Colleen Chien, who serves on the school's AI Leadership Committee, said faculty can deviate from the default policy when it serves teaching goals, noting "the policy is the starting point of a conversation, it's not the end of it."

Other schools have adopted middle-ground positions. Columbia Law School's August policy allows students to use AI to "test arguments, solicit criticism, and explore alternative articulations" plus spelling and grammar correction, provided the work remains "student generated" and reflects the student's own intellectual creativity. The University of Michigan permits AI for brainstorming and research but not for drafting, editing, or revising written work.

Mandatory AI education expands

Suffolk University Law School dean Andrew Perlman compiled publicly available AI policies using ChatGPT and released a database in August covering 180 law schools. According to the database, at least 36 schools now require some form of AI instruction, whether in orientation, mandatory first-year courses, or standalone classes.

Nearly all schools ban AI use during exams, according to University of Houston law professor Seth Chandler, who writes a blog about AI in legal education. Once-common take-home exams have largely given way to in-class tests with software blocking internet access.

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology report on AI and education released in August 2026 warned that the ease of getting answers from chatbots can induce "cognitive surrender," a concern particularly acute for law schools where critical thinking forms the profession's foundation.

These details were first reported by Karen Sloan for Reuters.