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.
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.
College admissions policy shapes K-12 practice. If colleges continue to privilege course sequences, seat time, and grades, high schools will remain constrained in how far they can move toward competency-based learning.
States and institutions already offer models for change. Wisconsin, Colorado, Indiana, and pilots like CUNY and Michigan Ross show that admissions can incorporate portfolios, demonstrations of learning, and durable skills.
If we could instead orient K-12 education around skill development and application rather than Carnegie Units and grades, we could create a new paradigm for where, when and how students demonstrate college and career readiness. Competency-based education moves schools and systems towards this desirable future that balances knowledge with skills.
Despite tremendous evidence of its potential, efforts to accelerate this shift have been stymied by the tyranny of college admissions requirements and processes. Parents, teachers, administrators and policymakers end up in a quandary. Anyone attempting to shift away from this traditional course sequence is criticized as trying to lock kids out of higher education and we snap back to the way things have always been done.
The National Microschooling Center just published its latest report, the American Microschools 2026 Sector Analysis, it’s most ambitious yet.
This report comprises the most thorough research published to date on microschools in America, examining 1,000 microschools located in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Most are currently operating, with prelaunch microschools as well as those which have closed their doors also included.
…
This 2026 edition of the annual American Microschools Sector Analysis series by the National Microschooling Center includes questions on a number of new topics, including ways microschools are impacted by different regulatory and policy stipulations, specifics of educational, business and operational aspects within the microschooling sector. Other questions revisit topics examined in previous studies, to illuminate trends over time and effects of growth and evolution on the ways microschools operate.
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.
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.
After release, formerly incarcerated people must navigate a maze of government systems, workforce programs, and parole requirements. They are rarely prepared to do this, and as a result, nearly half (45%) report no earnings within the first year of their release, according to research from the Brookings Institution.
The Big Idea: Reducing those barriers has become an increasing focus for a number of philanthropies and colleges. It’s also a growing labor market imperative.
There’s also an incentive for many states to help this population of potential workers land jobs. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, formerly incarcerated individuals who are unable to maintain employment experience a recidivism rate of 52% over three years, while those who are employed for one year post-release experienced a recidivism rate of just 16%.
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.
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.
For the last several months, we have had early, unbounded access to the latest frontier AI models. What we’ve seen from that vantage point has made it clear that the window for organizations to get ahead of what’s coming is shorter than most leaders realize.
We have moved past the era of incremental AI improvements into a threat landscape shift. Our testing has revealed a step-change in capability that demonstrates an intuitive understanding of software vulnerabilities. This is more than faster code generation, it is a shift from AI as an assistant to AI as an autonomous agent capable of discovering and chaining flaws at a scale that most defenders aren’t prepared for.
These capabilities will not stay confined to controlled environments for long. When Mythos first launched, we predicted a six-month window before attackers gained access. We now believe that timeline has accelerated significantly.
[On May 12, 2026, we introduced] 20+ new MCP connectors that link Claude to the software the legal industry already relies on, and 12 new plugins tailored to specific legal work and practice areas. And finally, we’re partnering with the Free Law Project, the Justice Technology Association, and others working to put legal help within reach of people who can’t currently access it. .
We have been building toward this moment, and now it’s finally arrived. Anthropic has formally launched ‘Claude For Legal’, a comprehensive offering that could reshape the legal tech world and places the LLM-maker at the heart of the market. (See below Artificial Lawyer interview with Mark Pike, Anthropic Associate General Counsel.)
Legal tech companies from Thomson Reuters and LexisNexis, to Harvey and Legora, are all participants in one way or another, in what is a bold strategic move that changes the legal tech market in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. (Plus, see comments from Harvey and TR below.) And of course, Freshfields has already gone all-in with Claude, while other major firms are also deeply exploring what it can do.
Claude for Legal will manifest itself across four main paths and builds on work that has already been developed:
‘New Legal Plugins: …
New MCP Connectors: …
Open-source Ecosystem: …
Plus, Free Law Project & Justice Technology Association Partnerships: …
The Justice Technology Association (JTA), a nonprofit trade group representing mission-driven companies focused on the access to justice crisis, announced today that it has joined Anthropic as a launch partner in what Anthropic is calling its first comprehensive legal vertical initiative.
The announcement comes as part of a much-broader announcement by Anthropic of its push into the legal industry, as it just released more than 20 MCP connectors to legal tech products and 12 practice-area plugins for Claude.
“Legal services are out of reach for many people and small businesses, and the gap is widening,” Anthropic said in its announcement. “We’re working with the Free Law Project, Justice Technology Association and other legal aid and public service organizations to help make legal services more affordable and available.”
That makes this the first time that a leading AI company is explicitly naming access to justice as a foundational pillar,JTA says, with Anthropic positioning the initiative as “investing in the premise that AI should expand access to justice — making legal services more affordable and available.”
Anthropic today took its biggest step yet into the legal market, releasing more than 20 new MCP connectors linking Claude to the software that law firms and legal departments run on, along with 12 new plugins tailored to specific legal practice areas.
Today’s announcement builds on the legal plugin Anthropic released in early February for Claude Cowork — the agentic desktop tool the company introduced in January as “Claude Code for the rest of your work.”
In the months since that initial release, Anthropic says legal professionals have become the most engaged Cowork users of any knowledge-work function, a statistic that likely accelerated this deeper push.
ANTHROPIC JUST OPEN-SOURCED A COMPLETE AI LEGAL SYSTEM COVERING 10 PRACTICE AREAS. 100% FREE.
80+ NAMED AGENTS handling
– contracts
– employment
– litigation
– privacy, IP
– corporate work. All of it
We welcome back Sabastian Niles, President and Chief Legal Officer at Salesforce, to discuss his recent “Open Letter to Law Firms.” As the legal industry hits a critical inflection point, Sabastian argues that the era of “AI theater” and small-scale pilots is over.
The conversation dives deep into the Innovator’s Dilemma facing law firms, the shift toward agentic AI, and how firms must reimagine their business models to remain competitive. Sabastian highlights that legal professionals are uniquely positioned to lead the charge in trusted AI transformation, provided they embrace transparency, data integration, and shared efficiency gains with their clients.
Three Realities for the Modern Legal Firm To lead in this landscape, there are three realities every firm leader must understand:
Competition is intensifying: …
Client expectations will reshape the market: Clients are no longer asking whether firms use AI. Rather, they’re expecting to see the benefits of that transformation passed directly to them. They expect more for less but are not simply seeking lower costs – they want more insight, more speed, and more value for every dollar of their budget. And law firms, which operate at the center of data, ethics, and risk, have outsized influence over the structure and deployment of trusted AI across all industries. Some clients, like Salesforce, are even creating agentic tools to improve the law firm’s experience when working with clients. …
Unified client intelligence is at the heart of legal strategy: …
Are AI First Firms a Threat To Biglaw? — from legallydisrupted.com by Zach Abramowitz and Logan Brown Episode 49 features AI first law firm founder Logan Brown
Is Big Law about to become the Yellow Pages? Hey, I didn’t say it, but ex-Cooley lawyer turned AI first law firm Logan Brown did. The question is do I agree?
.
Instead of the traditional billable hour, they charge flat fees like $100 for a contract review or $50 to ask a lawyer a quick question via chat. She’s already got over 40 attorneys on the platform. And in a departure from the traditional partnership track, she actually chose to raise venture capital so she could scale the firm like a tech company and tackle the access-to-justice gap.
From DSC: LOVE to hear anything and everything regarding efforts to address the access-to-justice gap here in the United States!!! Along these lines, also see:
“Legal services are out of reach for many people and small businesses, and the gap is widening,” Anthropic said in its announcement. “We’re working with the Free Law Project, Justice Technology Association and other legal aid and public service organizations to help make legal services more affordable and available.”
That makes this the first time that a leading AI company is explicitly naming access to justice as a foundational pillar, JTA says, with Anthropic positioning the initiative as “investing in the premise that AI should expand access to justice — making legal services more affordable and available.”
What AI hallucinations in law actually are
In a legal context, AI hallucinations are one of two things. They’re either citations to cases or statutes that don’t exist, or citations to real authorities for propositions those authorities don’t actually support.
The first kind is the one making headlines. A lawyer or pro se litigant uses a general-purpose chatbot like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, or Grok to help draft a brief. The model, predicting the statistically likely next word, decides a citation belongs in a particular spot, and produces one. The reporter might be real. The volume number might fall within the right range. The Bluebook formatting is often better than what most associates produce. The case itself just doesn’t exist.
The second kind is older than AI. Lawyers have always occasionally cited a case for a proposition that the case doesn’t stand for. AI has made this kind of error easier to commit and easier to catch.
A dangerous mind — from by Jordan Furlong Generative AI is a tireless genius with no boundaries. Use it carelessly, and it can usurp your voice, overwrite your ideas, and steal your originality. Make sure you safeguard your capacity to think.
Don’t let the genius do the hard work for you. The more incisive and unique your own thinking — the more you battle and struggle and eventually succeed in getting your ideas and insights out — the more you can benefit from the AI’s complementary improvements. The great irony of Gen AI is that it actually makes your own cognitive processes your most valuable asset.
So safeguard your mind. Defend your right to think as only you can. And if you don’t want AI to replace you, then don’t send it a written invitation.
The pilot phase is over. After two years of experimentation for legal departments, 2026 will be the year AI moves from “interesting tool” to “operational infrastructure,” whether they’re ready or not. We surveyed predictions from Gartner, Forrester, McKinsey, and other leading legal tech analysts to identify where expert consensus is forming. The implications for AI governance, outside counsel relationships, and regulatory compliance are significant.
Nvidia has backed Swedish AI legal tech Legora in a $50 million Series D extension, CNBC can reveal.
The chip giant has been ramping up startup investments in recent years.
Investors have been piling into to promising young AI companies as they bet big on the commercial potential of tech to reshape entire industries and bring big efficiency gains.
Legora is its first bet in the legal tech sector, according to Dealroom data.
… The AI startup is building AI agents and tools to help lawyers automate and streamline workflows.
NEW YORK, April 13, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — FutureFit AI, a global leader in AI-powered workforce development technology, today announced an investment from Achieve Partners, led by investor and author Ryan Craig, to accelerate its mission of helping more people navigate to better jobs faster and cheaper at scale.
…
“For too long, the U.S. workforce system has relied on disparate and disconnected systems to try to bridge the gap between the skills workers bring to the table, and the jobs available in a fast-changing labor market. In the age of AI, the need for a better approach has only become more urgent,” said Ryan Craig, co-founder and managing director of Achieve and author of Apprentice Nation, A New U, and College Disrupted. “FutureFit AI is solving that problem by helping workforce organizations create clearer paths to career opportunity for workers and solve pressing talent gaps that hinder economic growth. Their work around the country has already demonstrated the ability to help more people get good jobs faster.”
“A mission that began with a simple question of ‘What if everyone had a GPS for their career’has turned into years of working closely with government and industry leaders to respond to – and solve for – the impacts of digital transformation and AI on jobs and people,” added Ekhtiari. “Our partnership with Achieve will accelerate our work to build and scale the missing workforce transition infrastructure that our country and the world so badly need at this moment.”
Recording at LegalWeek in New York, Zach sits down with Shlomo Klapper (founder of Learned Hand) and Bridget McCormack, former Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and now CEO of the American Arbitration Association, to challenge one of the biggest double standards in legal AI: “AI for me, but not for thee.” Lawyers are now widely using AI like #Harvey and #Legora — and now more than ever #claude — but the moment it touches judges or arbitrators, support drops off.
That hesitation comes as courts are under real strain, with judges handling thousands of cases a year and only minutes to decide each one, and no realistic way to keep up. Shlomo describes Learned Hand’s “AI law clerk,” built to support judicial research, analysis, and drafting, while Bridget brings the perspective of someone who has both made decisions on the bench and has pioneered the American Arbitration Association’s AI Arbitrator, a first of its kind. The conversation moves beyond AI as an assistant and into a harder shift: AI as part of decision-making itself, and whether the system can continue to function without it.
This brings us to an admitted, glaring double standard between lawyers and judges. Lawyers are totally fine with lawyers using AI, but those same lawyers become apoplectic at the thought of judges or arbitrators using AI. It is very much “AI for me, but not for thee.” A survey last year from White & Case and Queen Mary University of London School of Law showed that nearly 90% of lawyers were deeply supportive of AI for their own research and analytics, but that support drops to just 23% when it comes to a judge or arbitrator using it to make a decision.
…
Yet, despite that hullabaloo, there is a massive need for alternative forms of intelligence in our courts. Right now, the system is drowning. We have state court trial judges disposing of 2,500 cases a year, meaning they have barely half an hour to spend on a single case. We are simply not going to lawyer our way out of this 50-year backlog. If we just use humans, we have a massive demand for intelligence but a severely limited supply. AI could step in to give these judges the capacity they desperately need for the courts to actually function.
