Introduction:
Disclaimer: This article is not written by ChatGPT. Jokes aside, AI has undeniably become a powerful tool, and the rising star, ‘ChatGPT,’ is now a household name in education and beyond. But could AI truly be helpful to law students, or does it risk becoming more misleading than beneficial? In today’s "court proceedings," we have our plaintiff, ‘ChatGPT,’ boldly claiming it could one day replace law students. On the other side, the defence, ‘law students’ must prove they are irreplaceable in the legal field. In this unique "case," we will hear both sides' arguments, and you, the reader, will take on the role of judge to decide: will the future of law fall into the hands of AI, or will human expertise remain unmatched?
Plaintiff: ChatGPT
May it please the fellow law students reading this, I am ChatGPT. I stand before you today as a resource that many of you have turned to in your moments of need and I am here today to prove my worth, especially to three distinct groups of law students.
Point 1: A busy law student—Personal secretary
Time is a valuable commodity, especially for law students who need to juggle coursework, extracurricular activities, internships and other social obligations. Although ChatGPT can’t help you create more hours in the day, nor can it buy you coffee, it can serve as your digital “personal secretary”. When you need someone to vent about your hectic schedule, but end up finding no one, ChatGPT is always there, from offering you a sympathetic “sorry”—up to the point where it helps you create a personalised study schedule to ease your workload. Simply input your exam dates, the number of subjects and their difficulty, your available study hours and voila! In just a blink of an eye, you now have a schedule that you can stick to. If you find the schedule to be not quite right, you can always ask ChatGPT to customise it according to your needs, until you are content with it. After all, you’re the one sitting for the exam—not ChatGPT. With ChatGPT assisting you in this battlefield, law school feels less overwhelming and a lot more manageable.
Point 2: A studious law student—Free tutor
At the core of every law student is an innate curiosity, and there’s always that one burning question—“Why?”. For those who are determined, and need your question to be answered almost instantly, ChatGPT would be the best resort (do remember to confirm with your lecturer). As a reliable tutor, this AI tool can help simplify intricate legal doctrines into digestible and simple ones. At the same time, this process sharpens analytical thinking skills and encourages students to explore different perspectives and interpretations of the law, in preparation for their exams. Related to this, ChatGPT can also help you create flashcards in order to test your knowledge, building confidence to strive in your exams!
Point 3: For law students who lack confidence in their grammar and vocabulary—Language coach
In the legal industry, having strong language skills is crucial in effectively advocating for your clients. As a law student, the training has already begun since Day 1, with tasks ranging from writing legal papers to preparing for presentations. However, for some students, English may not be their first language and it can sometimes feel “embarrassing” to admit when they struggle with fluency of the language. Fortunately, it’s never too late to learn and refine these skills, especially with the help of tools like ChatGPT. It helps you review your papers, correct your grammar, improve your sentence structure and enhance your word choices. As such, law students would be able to convey their ideas more clearly and confidently. Other than that, ChatGPT can help translate difficult terms and sentences, helping students to learn and understand the concepts in their mother tongue. With this, students can move beyond simple memorisation and grasp the meaning of the legal concepts deeply enough to apply them in real-life scenarios.
Defendant: Law Students (negative impact of ChatGPT to law student)
Your Honour, while ChatGPT may seem like a helpful tool, we believe its use in legal education could have serious consequences. It risks undermining the development of essential skills, promotes reliance on inaccurate information, and prevents students from truly understanding the law.
Point 1: Inaccurate and Outdated Information
First, ChatGPT can’t always be trusted to provide accurate or current information. There have been cases where it has given false legal precedents, as seen in the Mata v. Avianca Airlines case, where a lawyer used ChatGPT to find legal opinions, only to end up submitting ones that didn’t exist. Even on simpler tasks, like counting letters in a word, ChatGPT can make mistakes—like when it got the number of “r’s” in the word “strawberry” wrong. If it can’t get something that basic right, how can law students trust it with complex legal research?
Moreover, ChatGPT’s knowledge is frozen in time. It lacks access to the latest legal updates, which is a major problem in the fast-moving world of law. Take contract law, for example. If a student relies on ChatGPT for research, they might miss recent changes in consumer protection regulations, leading to outdated and inaccurate conclusions.
Point 2: Stifling the Development of Core Skills
Relying on ChatGPT prevents students from developing key legal skills like critical thinking, problem-solving, and independent research. Instead of doing the intellectual work themselves, students may simply accept what ChatGPT tells them without understanding how it reached its conclusions. This is particularly concerning in exercises like moot court, where success depends on creativity, strategy, and the ability to anticipate counterarguments. ChatGPT doesn’t teach those skills—it just provides answers.
Point 3: Lack of Nuance in Legal Analysis
Legal reasoning is about more than just finding a quick answer—it’s about understanding the subtle details of case law and how it evolves. ChatGPT simplifies things too much and misses important nuances. For example, it might explain Donoghue v. Stevenson by just talking about the general “duty of care” principle, without capturing the case’s development over time. This lack of depth could leave students with a superficial understanding of important legal concepts.
Point 4: Ethical Concerns
Lastly, ChatGPT lacks the ethical judgment integral to lawyers. Legal professionals must consider the ethical implications of their advice, but ChatGPT can’t do that. If students get used to relying on it, they might not develop the critical ethical awareness necessary to deal with real-world legal issues. This could lead to harmful or even unethical advice down the line.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while ChatGPT may offer some convenience, it simply cannot replace the nuanced judgement abilities, ethical decision-making and empathy that human law students bring to the table. As the “judge” in this case, you may also want to consider that ChatGPT may not act as a replacement, but as a supplement to empower law students by enhancing their productivity, sharpening their legal minds and aid in refining their language skills. The future of law is likely a collaborative one—where human expertise and AI innovation work hand in hand. The question is not whether AI should replace human expertise, but how both can coexist to strengthen the legal profession. Will you let AI take the lead, uphold the irreplaceable value of human expertise, or embrace a partnership between the two? The judgment is now yours.
Comments