Case Western Reserve University School of Law and Mississippi Christian University School of Law became the first two U.S. law schools to require first-year students to complete an AI certification program. Suffolk University Law School and UNLV's William S. Boyd School of Law have since adopted mandatory AI coursework, and Southwestern Law School will follow in fall 2026. This wave of requirements, driven by deans across the country, marks a structural shift in legal education away from treating AI as an elective and toward treating it as a core professional competency.
The stakes are concrete. Law firms are adopting AI at scale and developing their own tools. Courts have sanctioned lawyers for AI-generated hallucinations in more than 1,000 identified cases in the United States. Clients are pressing firms on efficiency and cost. These forces have pushed law schools to ask not whether AI belongs in the curriculum, but how deeply, how early, and how carefully it should be integrated. The shift, many deans say, is less about technology adoption and more about redefining what it means to be a competent lawyer. These mandatory courses are part of a broader rethinking of AI for Education across professional programs.
Required AI certification takes hold
Case Western Reserve University School of Law launched its Introduction to AI and the Law course in 2025, the first legal AI certification program required for 1Ls at a U.S. law school. The program, developed with Wickard.ai, covers large language models, prompt engineering, legal research, and ethical obligations. In 2026, the school added a component requiring students to build their own legal technology tools through AI-assisted coding-addressing problems like court-rule tracking, citation validation, and billing automation. Dean Paul Rose said the goal is to help students "move beyond AI understanding and into technology creation" and grasp the strengths and limitations of the tools through their own design work.
Mississippi Christian University School of Law partnered with Wickard.ai to become the first law school in the Southeast to require an AI boot camp and certification exam for all first-year students. Dean John P. Anderson said he "wants the firms hiring our students to be confident that every MC Law grad is competent in AI technologies." MC Law secured $1.2 million to establish the Center for AI Policy and Technology Leadership, offering courses on AI and machine learning, cybersecurity, and the practice of law. At Southwestern Law School, Dean Darby Dickerson will make the AI & the Law course mandatory for 1Ls beginning this fall, with an emphasis on hands-on training, ethics, and the responsible integration of AI into legal analysis and writing.
Balancing tool use with foundational skills
The expansion of required AI coursework comes with a sharp recognition of the risks. Dean Andrew Perlman of Suffolk University Law School described a "central pedagogical challenge of this moment": cognitive offloading. "Students can become overly dependent on AI before they develop the professional judgment necessary to supervise it," Dickerson said, adding that AI can produce work that is "fluent, confident, and wrong." Dean Leah Chan Grinvald of UNLV's Boyd Law School echoed that concern, noting that students may lose the ability to read and analyze legal texts if they rely too heavily on tools that summarize cases in seconds. Grinvald said the school has been "approaching AI with caution" and designed its new required course to examine not only how AI is used but whether it should perform certain legal tasks at all.
For Dean Adam Chilton of the University of Chicago Law School, the starting point remains unchanged: "students first and foremost have to learn how to think critically, strategically, and deeply, and do so without relying on machines." Chicago has built AI-resilient pedagogy and assessments to ensure that AI supports rather than substitutes for legal education. The school's dual mandate-teaching students to think both without machines and with them-reflects a view shared by many deans that foundational lawyering skills cannot be sacrificed as AI tools become embedded in practice.
Hands-on learning and technology creation
Several law schools are combining AI literacy with experiential work that gives students direct experience building and evaluating legal technology. Suffolk Law's LIT Lab functions as a research-and-development consultancy, where students design tools for courts and legal aid organizations. Its newest initiative, the AAA-Suffolk ODR Innovation Clinic, is developing an AI-enabled online dispute resolution process for unrepresented litigants in family law matters. At Stanford Law School, the Policy Practicum: AI for Legal Help course places interdisciplinary teams with legal aid groups to design and evaluate AI tools for people facing eviction, criminal records issues, and other access-to-justice challenges. Students produce benchmark datasets, user-experience reports, and system design proposals. The ability to build and evaluate AI for Legal tools is becoming a distinguishing skill for new lawyers, these programs suggest.
The University of Michigan Law School's AI Law Policy Clinic places students with courts and legal services providers to develop AI-enabled tools in real-world settings. Dean Neel U. Sukhatme sees technology as a means to expand access to justice and help students develop as problem solvers, while also stressing that AI must remain "a complement to, rather than substitute for, development of foundational skills." At Case Western, the 2026 1L requirement that students create their own prototypes through AI-assisted coding is an attempt to turn AI from a black box into a tool students understand by building with it.
Why this matters for educators
Law schools' varied experiments in AI education offer a concrete model for professional programs in other fields. The central tension-equipping students with powerful new tools while ensuring they do not outsource the analytical work that builds lasting expertise-will be familiar to anyone training future accountants, clinicians, engineers, or consultants. The deans interviewed all emphasized that AI literacy is not a standalone module; it must be woven through the curriculum, shaped by clear learning outcomes, and anchored in rigorous ethical training. The schools moving fastest are those that treat AI as a core competency, not a technology add-on, and that ask students not just to use AI but to question when and why it should be used. As Dickerson put it, the urgent question is "What does it now mean to be a competent lawyer?" That same question is rippling across higher education, and law schools are providing some of the earliest and most carefully documented answers.
Your membership also unlocks:
