Danielle Pelfrey Duryea, Boston University School of Law, has published What Does Generative Artificial Intelligence Mean for Clinical Legal Education?
Within the last ten months, OpenAI's ChatGPT and other large language model (LLM) artificial intelligence tools have become widely available, widely celebrated, and widely feared. The legal profession is abuzz with think-pieces on how AI will (or won't) transform the practice of law. Legal academia has begun to digest how these extremely rapidly-evolving tools could change legal education and licensure, including studying practices (e.g., Harrington), law school exams (e.g., Choi, Hickman, Monahan & Schwarcz), legal research and writing (e.g., Romig; Bishop; Baskaran; Smith), podium teaching and academic service (e.g., Pettinato Oltz), and the bar exam (e.g., Williams; Bommarito & Katz). This paper continues this urgent reflection by considering how AI tools change the context for and practice of conventional goals and methods of clinical legal education, including client-centered / collaborative lawyering, from-scratch drafting of legal documents, professional collaboration, etc.
The full text is not available from SSRN.