How a studio-based format transforms online teaching — from timeshighereducation.com by multiple authors from Cranfield University in England
Online teaching works best when teaching, facilitation and technical delivery are treated as complementary professional roles. Read guidance on studio-based delivery

Our experience of studio-based delivery suggests the need for a different approach. In this model, teaching is delivered as a live, facilitated learning experience in which academics focus on teaching and interaction, while facilitators and production staff manage interaction, session flow and technology.

Responsibilities are intentionally divided to enable more effective online pedagogy: academics concentrate on explaining concepts, facilitating discussion and responding to students while production staff manage the technical environment, transition between activities, recordings, multimedia integration, chat moderation, breakout rooms and troubleshooting, enabling a more engaging and authentic learning experience.

The most transferable lesson is that online teaching works best when teaching, facilitation and technical delivery are treated as complementary professional roles and when it is underpinned by pedagogical design. 

 

 

 

From the LegalTech Fund’s Q2 2026 Update:

Industry Foresight: Following the successful completion of Pathways Phase 1, we launched Pathways Phase 2: The Future of Law in partnership with Harvey and Law.com. Phase 2 brings together a curated cohort of legal industry leaders, innovators, academics, and operators to develop future scenarios and identify the critical legal, regulatory, business, capital, and technology inflection points that may shape the industry through 2040. The resulting framework will serve as a shared strategic tool to help the legal ecosystem navigate uncertainty and prepare for multiple possible futures.


 

Nikii Shaver on legal AI strategy, agentic governance, and trusted judgement — from The Geek in Review Podcast

What does legal AI value look like once speed stops serving as the headline metric? In this episode of The Geek in Review, Greg Lambert and Marlene Gebauer speak with Nikki Shaver, co-founder and CEO of  Legal Technology Jub and a member of the inaugural Financial Times Law 50. Shaver argues that law firms need to move beyond time saved toward efficacy: stronger output, stronger client outcomes, and more effective legal advice.

The conversation examines why the billable hour is far from finished yet no longer serves as the sole measure of legal value. Shaver compares hourly timekeeping to a taxi meter: useful for internal visibility, yet insufficient as the price signal for work transformed by AI. Workflow mapping, client discussions, and pricing discipline become central where an AI-enabled process compresses weeks of effort into hours.

Corporate legal departments are adopting AI at a faster pace, bringing new pressure to outside counsel. Some in-house teams see AI as a route to keep more work inside, while others see room for firms to take on work that previously sat outside budget limits. Shaver frames the strategic question around delivering more for clients, especially in practice areas where a firm holds differentiated expertise.

AI has not produced the promised empty calendar. Instead, lawyers report fuller schedules, longer documents, and a growing verification tax. Shaver flags the rise of 40-page forms, bloated redlines, and outputs that look polished yet lack sound reasoning. The episode makes a practical case for concise drafting, human review, and critical reasoning before any AI-generated material reaches a client or counterparty.

Agentic AI raises the stakes. Legal Technology Hub’s AI Agents in Law Map tracks hundreds of solutions, yet governance has not kept pace with new autonomy, connectors, and downstream system access. Shaver urges firms to establish traceability, unique identifiers, risk-based human oversight, enforceable policies, and a clear view of where data travels.

For firms aiming past baseline adoption, Shaver draws a line between routine personal use and strategic transformation. Daily use builds fluency, but competitive advantage grows from proprietary workflows, data foundations, client-facing collaboration spaces, and focused investment in the practices where a firm already excels. Her crystal-ball view is blunt: trusted judgment will become a scarce premium asset, AI-native firms will rise, and traditional firms will launch AI-native subsidiaries of their own.


Nonprofit, legal automation company design new AI tool to protect public benefits — from abajournal.com by Amanda Robert

An artificial intelligence tool from national nonprofit Frontline Justice and legal automation company Josef that aims to improve access to justice is rolling out across three states.

Frontline Q, an AI assistant that can help families navigate the complex Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is now available in Arizona, Texas and Alaska. Using a combination of federal, state and local regulations and with oversight from legal aid lawyers, it offers answers to questions about the program’s eligibility and appeal rules.


CLM is a Zombie, ALSPs are In Trouble and Outside Counsel Budgets Cut in Half: Episode 54, Wordsmith.ai CEO Ross McNairn — from legallydisrupted.com by Zach Abramowitz
The understated founder of one of the hottest legal AI startups on the market makes bold predictions


Though not necessarily related to legaltech, these items caught my eye as well:

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) is reportedly ending its deal with Flock Safety, a surveillance company that helps law enforcement track vehicles using thousands of its license plate cameras placed across the United States.

A senior LAPD official told news outlets, first reported by ABC7 and the Los Angeles Times, that the police department would allow its three-year contract with Flock to expire when it ends on Saturday. The department cited “serious concerns” around civil liberties and privacy. Flock’s cameras are operated by the Atlanta, Georgia-based company and not the LAPD.

To survive this nightmarish job market, candidates are now “spraying and praying,” as one career coach described it — or paying resume services to blast out thousands of CVs per day to game the system and land a gig. However, according to experts in the tech industry who spoke with SFGATE, this is only creating a vicious cycle of inefficiency that hurts both workers and companies.

 

LEGAL FUTURISMS: Consumer Legal Tech and the Soul of US Democracy

The “Dollar Legal” Thought Experiment

What if the salvation of our democratic enthusiasm doesn’t come from a political revolution, but a technological one? Enter the thought experiment of Dollar Legal.

Imagine a ubiquitous, consumer-facing legal tech platform—accessible from any smartphone—that commoditizes basic legal defense and assertion of rights. It is AI-driven legal agency for the masses, costing no more than a cup of coffee, or perhaps literally a single dollar.

Dollar Legal wouldn’t exist to litigate complex corporate mergers; it would exist to handle the agonizing friction of everyday survival. It instantly analyzes a notice to quit, drafts a legally sound response asserting warranty of habitability defenses, and files it electronically. It forces the bureaucratic machine to pause. It translates the raw, terrifying human experience of a legal threat into the cold rules and procedures that the justice system understands.

And the price, $1.00, at sufficient scale, would support the operation and maintenance of the service.

By deploying Dollar Legal, we fundamentally shift the balance of power. The democratization of legal leverage changes the calculus for bad actors who rely on the silent default judgments of the unrepresented.

 

The Law School Deans Driving AI Innovation in Legal Education — from natlawreview.com by Shivani Vedhere, AI & the Law Newsletter; via Colin S. Levy

Artificial intelligence is no longer a peripheral issue for legal education. It is quickly becoming one of the central questions facing law schools: how to prepare future lawyers for a profession in which AI will affect research, client counseling, litigation strategy, access to justice, and the business of law.

For decades, law schools treated legal technology as an elective or a niche interest for students already inclined toward innovation. That era is ending. Law firms are adopting AI tools at scale and even investing in developing their own tools. Clients are asking harder questions about efficiency, cost, and competence. Courts are sanctioning lawyers and litigants for AI-generated hallucinations, with the number of identified cases in the United States now exceeding 1,000. Students entering the profession will be expected to keep up with this rapidly changing landscape.

The most forward-looking law schools are responding accordingly. That transformation is being driven in large part by a group of innovative law school deans who are treating AI not as a passing trend, but as a structural change in legal education.

These initiatives signal a broader shift in legal academia where law schools are no longer merely debating whether AI belongs in the curriculum. The more pressing question is how deeply, how early, and how responsibly AI should be integrated into legal education.

 

Contrapposto — from sateeshnori.substack.com by Sateesh Nori
We are losing the war for Access to Justice. And we keep aiming our attacks on our own side.
.

“To Public Interest Lawyers of Any Kind:

Only when you have vanquished every eviction notice that shouldn’t have been filed… Only when you have defeated every predatory landlord, every wage thief, every debt collector armed with a default judgment… Only when you have lifted the burden from every tenant who faced Housing Court alone… Only when every family has shelter and every worker has been paid what they’re owed… Only when every immigrant has had someone in their corner and every person in crisis has had a lawyer who showed up… Only when every child aging out of foster care has had counsel, and every survivor of domestic violence has had an advocate who knew the system cold…

Only then — only when you have directed your energy toward the real adversaries: the justice gap, the underfunded courts, the 92% who never get a lawyer at all — only then can you attack another public interest lawyer for the tools they chose to fight with.”

 

The unbundling of lawyer institutions — from jordanfurlong.substack.com by Jordan Furlong
AI will strip law firms and law schools of their commodity features. Their future depends on whether they can rebuild around their highest-value functions and their trust-bearing core.

Two very different articles — one from a law professor, one from a legal technology analyst — crossed my desk last month. They each say something really important about law schools and law firms, respectively. But taken together, they point us towards what I think is an even more profound reality about lawyer institutions in the post-AI world.

At his eponymous Substack, Professor Michael Plaxton’s “To Our Next Law Dean” is really addressed to every dean of every law school, asking: After AI, how will you justify our existence? His concern is that AI is rapidly learning to perform many of the tasks law schools train students to do, and to deliver much of the general legal knowledge law schools provide at scale, including research, writing, analysis, and explanation.

At Legal Technology Hub, Nikki Shaver’s “Law Firms Want to Change; They Just Can’t” asks whether law firms are capable of managing the transition to a post-AI legal market.

Law schools and law firms are the legal profession’s most important institutions. But they were built for a world in which legal intelligence was scarce, and that world is rapidly passing away.

 


Also related/see:


Affordable & Accessible: The Democratization of Legal Tech (Tyler Foreman VP of AI – Rocket Lawyer) — from tlpodcast.com with Tyler Foreman & Chad Main
Tyler Foreman, the Vice President of AI at Rocket Lawyer, joins the show to discuss the intersection of artificial intelligence and the legal industry.

The conversation focuses on how modern generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) act as a legal operating system to simplify contract reviews, document drafting, and client intake, while maintaining essential connections to human attorneys.

 

Why Students Aren’t All In on AI—And What They Want From Colleges — from insidehighered.com by  Colleen Flaherty
New Student Voice data reveal students are embracing AI as a learning tool while worrying about dependence, career disruption and inconsistent institutional responses.

Read on for six takeaways from the survey and additional insights—including how institutions can start to close the gap between students’ optimism about AI as a learning tool and their faith in their colleges’ ability to help them navigate change.

Takeaway 1: More students are using AI than ever for coursework, while a significant share—20 percent—remain resisters.

Takeaway 2: “Worried about dependence” is the most common student stance on AI.

Takeaway 3: A majority of all students expect AI to somewhat (39 percent) or very (16 percent) negatively impact their career prospects.

Takeaway 4: Just one in 10 students says that their institution is handling AI’s rise very well, in a thoughtful and proactive way.

…and more >>

 

 

Majority of law school faculty self-censor, think legal education headed in wrong direction, new survey finds — from abajournal.com by Julianne Hill

A majority of law school faculty said legal education is headed in the wrong direction and feel unable to freely express their opinions for fear of how students, colleagues or administrators would respond.

That’s according to the finding of a new survey of nearly 2,000 law school faculty at 192 ABA-accredited law schools by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonprofit organization that defends free speech.

Released Tuesday, 57% identified as liberal leaning, 18% identified as conservative leaning, 16% identified as moderate, and 10% identified as something else, according to the survey.

 

Students say law school isn’t prepping them to use AI in practice, new survey shows — from abajournal.com by Julianne Hill; note this may be behind a paywall

Just 30% of third-year law students think that their school is preparing them for artificial intelligence in practice, leaving 70% of soon-to-be bar candidates to learn best practices for the emerging technology on their own.

That’s according to the results of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s 2026 Law Student Pulse Survey of 1,874 U.S. law students between April 6 and April 19.


Also see:

Grads of non-ABA-accredited law school can sit for Washington state bar exam — from abajournal.com by Julianne Hill; note this may be behind a paywall

As of Sept. 1, graduates of non-ABA-accredited law schools will be allowed to sit for the bar exam in Washington state after a policy change by the state’s bar association.

Law.com reported Thursday that the change had been formally adopted by the Washington State bar Association’s Board of Governors.

 

I Was a University AI Czar. I’m Not Equipped to Teach in the Age of AI. — from jgellers.substack.com by Josh Gellers, PhD

The reason that I claim I am not well-suited to thrive as an instructor in the age of AI is because both AI Enthusiasts and AI Resisters put a lot of thought and energy into completely redesigning their classes in response to AI. This is the one takeaway that I don’t think the Exhausted Majority has fully accepted yet—to excel as a teacher in this AI era, you need to totally revise how you teach and how you assess what students learn in your classes.

I can say this much—whatever solution our industry comes up with, it’s likely to emerge from teaching and learning centers. Contrary to what Paul Schofield  wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education, pedagogy experts are the best hope we have to equip today’s faculty with the tools required to succeed in this uncertain educational environment. As I always tell my students, “I was trained for 7 years to become a researcher and 2 days to become a teacher.” The idea that only disciplinary experts know how to teach and have nothing to learn from so-called “nonscholars” is so laughable that one has to wonder whether an AI agent jokingly wrote that sad opinion piece to troll the whole academe.

Also from Dr. Gellers, see:

The Worst AI Policy in Higher Ed
How Berkeley Law Boalt-ed From Expertise in Favor of Abstinence

Last week, one of the top law schools in the United States, the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, released its final policy on artificial intelligence, effective summer 2026. In the span of a breezy 1.5 pages, the school outlined the challenge AI poses to legal education and how it plans to address this problem. Despite these intentions, this AI policy is, in my estimation, the worst AI policy in higher education I have seen.


From AI Tutors to AI Study Mates— from drphilippahardman.substack.com by Dr Philippa Hardman
New research reveals how AI can enable real learning — not just productivity gains


.

The point isn’t that AI is inherently bad for learning — it’s that the meta-analyses showing that LLMs improve assignment and performance scores are measuring the wrong thing. They’re measuring performance with the AI present, not learning that persists once it’s gone.

.
From DSC:
Notice that when an AI-based learning system can remember what you’ve worked on and how you are doing — where you are struggling or doing well — it can have a positive impact on your longer-term learning. That, to me, is where long-term based learner profiles come in.

Later in the article, Dr. Hardman points out that “if we want to deliver AI tooling which supports substantive learning, we need to intentionally create a new category of AI tool for ‘learning at work’ which prioritises learning and development over productivity.” While I agree with that, I do wonder if businesses will care, so long as the work gets done and gets done well. But this calls into mind the word “experience” — something that traditionally has been hard fought to get in the corporate world. But the corporate realm often doesn’t like to pay for experience (beyond key AI-based jobs) when they perceive it’s getting too expensive. Ask all those 50 and over who had or have a target on their backs.

.


 

Easy to miss: Anthropic named the Justice Technology Association as the access-to-justice partner in the launch. The cost floor just dropped (while the product got better) for consumer legal. Law Firm 2.0 gets the headlines. A2J and direct-to-consumer is the largest white space in legal.


Antti Innanen > LAVERN: OPEN SOURCE

It has been a crazy 48 hours. We released Lavern as open source.

An agentic legal system, six months in the making, 155,000+ lines of code, 67 specialist agents, nine workflows, and at least ten things inside it that you could make as a separate product.

I was a bit anxious, like I was organising a kids’ party with balloons, unsure if anyone would come.

But they did.

 


 

Deans for Impact Releases New Edition of The Science of Learning  — from deansforimpact.org
Second edition of seminal report reflects new research amidst growing momentum for evidence-based instruction in teacher preparation and PK-12.

AUSTIN, Texas (May 19, 2026) – Deans for Impact (DFI) today released the second edition of The Science of Learning, a report translating cognitive-science research into practical implications for teaching. The updated edition includes new research on memory, attention, motivation, and learning misconceptions, offering educators a research-based foundation for understanding how to support durable student learning.

First released in 2015, The Science of Learning is DFI’s most widely-used and cited resource, with more than one million downloads. Since its publication, DFI has supported nearly 300 teacher-preparation programs to make instructional quality a priority in the way teachers are prepared, directly impacting more than 110,000 teachers over the last decade.

The second edition arrives at a moment when more than 40 states have made meaningful investments in strengthening evidence-based instruction, particularly in early literacy, mathematics, and the use of high-quality instructional materials. The science of learning supports future teachers to build a comprehensive foundation for instructional decision-making that cuts across content areas and grade levels.

The report has been endorsed by more than 100 field experts and leading organizations across the United States and internationally.

Download the report at deansforimpact.org/thescienceoflearning.


An example excerpt:

 
© 2025 | Daniel Christian