Effective Summer 2026
Purpose
Future lawyers whitethorn request to usage artificial intelligence (“AI”) fluently. But the existent authorities of the exertion requires that AI usage beryllium coupled pinch the cognitive skills basal to strategically deploy the technology, to critically measure its activity product, and to uphold ethical obligations to clients and to the ineligible system. In short, reasoning remains the sine qua non of bully lawyering (and of a value ineligible education). This argumentation seeks to guarantee that our courses attraction connected requisite cognitive skills by default. It provides students pinch the opportunity to create the skills they request to conceptualize, outline, draft, revise, and edit their activity by forbidding the usage of AI for these purposes successful relationship pinch activity submitted for credit. It besides forbids utilizing AI to construe activity for credit, frankincense providing students pinch the opportunity to create and workout their ain fluency pinch ineligible English. And it prohibits AI usage for immoderate intent successful immoderate exam situation. Activities violating the norm see (but are not constricted to):
- Asking an AI instrumentality to brainstorm a insubstantial taxable aliases thesis (prohibited conceptualizing)
- Asking an AI instrumentality to propose an organizational building for a insubstantial (prohibited outlining)
- Asking an AI instrumentality to constitute a paragraph summarizing a ineligible norm for usage successful a insubstantial (prohibited drafting)
- Asking an AI instrumentality to place repetitive passages successful a insubstantial that should beryllium trim (prohibited revising)
- Asking an AI instrumentality to polish a insubstantial by correcting grammatical mistakes (prohibited editing)
- Asking AI to make an exam outline, elements of which are past utilized connected the exam (prohibited exam use)
- Asking AI to construe a insubstantial primitively written successful different connection into English (prohibited translating)
Instructors whitethorn deviate from the default norm for courses designed intentionally to thatch AI fluency (or for different courses for which the coach decides a chopped norm is pedagogically appropriate).
The purposes of this argumentation are (1) to guarantee the champion ineligible acquisition imaginable for our students by equipping them to execute activities constitutive of fantabulous lawyering, specified arsenic mastering superior texts, utilizing ineligible reasoning to use ineligible authorities to caller ineligible questions, and independently processing imaginative solutions; and (2) to beforehand fairness and administrability.
Rule
The usage of AI is prohibited for assistance successful conceptualizing, outlining, drafting, revising, translating, aliases editing immoderate activity submitted for credit. AI usage is prohibited for immoderate usage for immoderate intent successful immoderate exam situation. Students whitethorn not upload people materials—including assignments, readings, slides, people recordings, aliases different people content—into generative AI systems. AI tin beryllium utilized for investigation connected papers ONLY for the constricted intent of identifying sources, specified arsenic cases, statutes, aliases secondary sources. Students are responsible for the accuracy of their investigation and each different aspects of their submitted work. Citations to sources that do not beryllium will raise a presumption of prohibited AI use.
Instructors person the discretion to deviate from this default rule, provided that they do truthful successful penning and pinch due announcement and require students to disclose immoderate authorized AI use. If a student has a mobility astir whether a peculiar usage of AI violates this default norm aliases an instructor’s replacement rule, they must inquire their coach and person explanation successful penning earlier engaging successful the use.
English (US) · 
Indonesian (ID) · 
