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.

 

Higher Education Can’t Wait for the Future to Arrive (Lev Gonick, Arizona State University) — from humanistxyz.substack.com by Allison Dulin Salisbury
“The biggest risk we face as a sector is assuming we can wait out AI.”

We have an opportunity right now to reorient the university around student experience—not as an aspiration, but as a necessity. I’m calling this shift TechEd, which I explore in detail in my LinkedIn series The TechEd Revolution.

AI poses a fundamental shift in how technology might empower students to own their discovery and educational journey, and to drastically reduce the friction that makes college so unappealing to so many.

To that end, we need to urgently redesign systems and opportunities around skills and competencies. That work should be far more advanced than it currently is. And one of the hardest challenges is rethinking how we operate as a workforce in academia. 

 

The Current State of Play: AI in Higher Education and the Road Ahead — from er.educause.edu by Tanya Gamby, David Kil, Rachel Koblic, Paul LeBlanc, Mihnea Moldoveanu and George Siemens

The conventional explanation for this strategic vacuum points to the speed of technological change; it is moving too fast for institutions built for deliberation. That is true. . . and incomplete. The deeper issue is cultural. In fairness to higher education, many industries are struggling to keep up with the pace of AI advances. Higher education, however, moves even more slowly and is not built for the kind of transformational speed now underway. Getting institutional stakeholders to engage, rethink the work, and move faster may be the central challenge facing presidents and chancellors today, and that’s saying a lot in such volatile times.

From DSC:
I highlighted this paragraph because it hits upon the key item involved here — culture. “The deeper issue is cultural.” I think that’s a very true statement.

Part of the culture and setup of many institutions includes giving faculty members full rein of their classes and their departments. Faculty members have a great deal of leeway and power in how they do things. So trying to get X faculty members to get on board — including the Department Chairs — is not an easy task. 

Another part of culture involves being willing — or not — to change in the first place. Some institutions are like Google and are used to making changes and being more innovative. But those institutions are not the norm, at least in my experience. And this doesn’t even address another topic the article mentioned — the pace of these changes. As the authors point out, most institutions of traditional higher education are not equipped to deal with the current pace of change (nor are most of our other types of institutions and our corporations as well). 

I’m going to end this posting with another brief excerpt from the article:

Institutions rooted in human relationships, committed to truth-seeking, and oriented toward the full development of persons play a central role. AI cannot manufacture the experience of mattering to another human being. It cannot model intellectual courage or ethical discernment. It cannot build the kind of community in which students discover who they are and what they believe.

These are not small things. They are, in fact, the things most worth doing. At their best, colleges and universities are not only preparing better workers but shaping individuals and strengthening society.

 

From DSC:
Following are several companies that are using AI to connect people to work. That’s a significant piece of my Learning from the Living [AI-Based Class] Room vision.

These companies were listed on an article entitled,
Can AI be an effective career coach?
— from achievepartners.com and Ryan Craig


FutureFit AI
Bridge the gap between talent, training, and employment at scale

AI-powered workforce technology connecting people to careers, employers to talent, and workforce partners to tools for integrated and intelligent workforce systems.

PathPilot AI

Empowering every job seeker with personalized AI coaching. Helping organizations scale career services and improve outcomes.

Empower Students with Career-Ready Skills
Help students discover career pathways, develop essential skills, and connect with opportunities. PathPilot provides personalized guidance that scales across your entire institution.

  • AI-powered career exploration and pathway planning
  • Skills assessment aligned with NACE competencies
  • Resume builder and interview preparation tools
  • Job matching with local and national employers
  • Institutional analytics and outcome tracking
  • Integration with existing career services systems

Pathific — Design your future
The all-in-one platform that connects your strengths to programs, careers, and real salary outcomes — powered by AI.

High school, post-secondary, newcomer to Canada, or career change — Pathific meets you where you are.

Your all-in-one career compass
Quality career guidance shouldn’t depend on where you go to school, when you start your journey, or where you come from. Using the latest AI and comprehensive Canadian data, we built a platform that gives everyone clear, data-driven pathways to their future. No more one-size-fits-all advice. No more guessing. Just your strengths, connected to real data.

OpportuNext

See Where Your Skills Can Take You | Find new career path opportunities with one simple search.

OpportuNext from Signal49 Research is a free-to-use career tool created in partnership with the Future Skills Centre. Using big data, it matches a person’s skills with viable career paths — often including some you have not considered.

 

If AI Eats the Entry-Level Job, Where Do Young People Learn to Work? (Ryan Craig, Achieve Partners) — from humanistxyz.substack.com by Allison Dulin Salisbury; via Ryan Craig
“The public should not be subsidizing colleges whose students lack relevant, paid, in-field work experience.”

That is the trap at the center of this conversation: everyone wants to hire someone with three years of experience, and almost no one wants to provide those three years.

And Ryan’s policy prescription is unusually concrete: pay employers to hire and train apprentices, following the countries that have scaled apprenticeship far faster than the U.S.; require colleges receiving federal student aid to provide relevant, paid, in-field work experience; and build a market of intermediaries that can make the whole thing operational.

Ryan’s view is that higher education remains critically important. But college without meaningful work experience may become a much worse bet, especially for students who cannot afford to guess wrong.

 

A screenplay written by a Calvin Prison Initiative student while incarcerated is now screening at film festivals across the country. — from linkedin.com by the Calvin Prison Initiative


From DSC:
I used to work with Calvin film and media professor Geert Heetebrij — who was behind this endeavor. I went to the same church that he and his family attended. I can’t say enough good things about him. He’s just fantastic! By the way, he was there for me when twelve of us didn’t survive the fourth round of layoffs at Calvin (back then it was Calvin College). He periodically — but consistently — checked in on me as the job search continued. He prayed for me (and for my family). His steadfast encouragement meant a lot to me.

I also worked with Sam Smartt, who was also mentioned in the article. Go Geert! Go Sam! And go Calvin for continuing to do your prison ministries! You were one of the first to do this, if not thee first.


 

 

Christian: Could this be a part of our future learning ecosystems?


From DSC:
Could this be a part of our future learning ecosystems? Education as a personalized content feed.


Coursera wants users to learn through shorter, faster content  — from digitaltrends.com by Moinak Pal
Coursera wants online learning to feel more like TikTok
.

Online learning platform Coursera is taking a page straight out of TikTok’s playbook. The company has launched a new AI-powered feed designed to serve short-form educational content in a scrollable, personalized format, signaling a major shift in how digital learning platforms may try to keep users engaged.

The feature introduces bite-sized video lessons, clips, and explainers curated through artificial intelligence based on a user’s interests, learning habits, career goals, and previous course activity. Instead of committing to hour-long lectures or full certification programs upfront, users can now discover short educational snippets designed to make learning feel more casual, accessible, and addictive.

Users scroll through a feed of short educational videos and AI-curated learning moments covering topics ranging from coding and business to AI, productivity, data science, and personal development.

 

Cleveland Institute of Art’s Interactive Media Lab Redefines What an Art School Can Be — from edtechmagazine.com

The landscape for specialized colleges and universities such as art schools is shifting as higher education continues to evolve to fit emerging job markets and student interest.

Founded in 1882, Cleveland Institute of Art continuously challenges itself to stay modern and relevant. Years ago, the school’s leadership had the vision to partner with the city to revitalize an area due for reinvigoration.

The result was the Interactive Media Lab, which brings together the university, the city and private industry into a satellite campus that gives students and the community a space to create media, art and experiences with the most up-to-date tools available.


Also see:

 

GenAI practice blossoms through the open exchange of insights — from timeshighereducation.com by Samuel Doherty, who is the education and innovation coordinator at the University of Newcastle in Australia
How a structured GenAI professional development series, built around practice, peer voices and multiple entry points, fosters open exchange among colleagues, universities and industry

Connect internal practice to sector-wide thinking
Whatever is happening within any single institution is only part of the picture. Effective GenAI practice grows through open exchange of insights among colleagues, universities, professional bodies and industry, and a development programme that is entirely inward-looking risks missing both useful knowledge and important shifts in expectation.

Our AI sector voices sessions aim to bring external contributors into the programme: researchers, practitioners and sector representatives working at the intersection of GenAI and higher education. The aim is to situate institutional practice within the wider conversation and to signal to staff that the institution is genuinely engaged with that conversation, not just managing it internally.

In the Australian context, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Teqsa) people pillar positions staff as drivers, enablers, users and innovators of GenAI practice, and identifies a lack of information or understanding as one of the primary barriers to ethical and effective engagement. That framing is useful regardless of regulatory context: institutions that treat their people as active participants in shaping practice, rather than recipients of policy, are likely to develop more durable capability.

Regular, lightweight communications, a weekly community of practice update and a monthly all-staff digest can maintain momentum between sessions without adding significantly to anyone’s workload. 

 

Workplace Readiness: Can Higher Education Develop AI-Ready Students? — from learningguild.com by Eddie Lin and Roshan Bharwaney

For higher education to remain relevant, curricula must evolve. Here are some overarching recommendations for directions in higher education to bridge the skills gaps between universities and workplaces:

  • AI ethics and safety: Prepare students to navigate issues of fairness, bias, privacy, and societal impact.
  • Tackling complex questions: Emphasize open-ended challenges that blend structured and unstructured skills and reduce reliance on standardized tests and repetitive drills.
  • Critical thinking: Develop new assessments for judgment, creativity, and metacognition—essential to supervise AI outputs.
  • Human-AI synergy: Embed AI fluency across all disciplines, encouraging students to find the niches where human value is maximized.
  • Industry connection: Maintain close industry partnerships and collaborations including open innovation opportunities and collective intelligence approaches (Bharwaney & Sleeva, 2024).

Experiential learning and communities of practice are central to this vision. Internships, simulations, and cross-disciplinary projects can help students practice human-AI collaboration, resilience, and decision-making in environments that mirror the workplace’s ambiguity and complexity.

Universities that condemn the use of AI by students risk isolating themselves from the realities of today’s workplace, where interns and new hires are expected to be or quickly become adept at using AI for routine tasks and complex projects. 

 

Why universities must become flexible lifelong partners, not one-time providers — from timeshighereducation.com by Sankar Sivarajah
As careers become increasingly non-linear and shaped by rapid change, universities must evolve beyond traditional degree provision, says Sankar Sivarajah. Here, he outlines strategies

From programmes to learning ecosystems
These pressures point towards a broader redefinition of higher education. Rather than viewing education as a one-time experience culminating in a degree, universities increasingly need to see themselves as partners in professional development across an entire career.

This means moving from a model centred on programmes to one focused on learning ecosystems that allow individuals to enter, leave and re-engage with higher education as their needs evolve.

Business schools may be particularly well placed to lead this shift because of their close engagement with employers and their long tradition of educating professionals at different stages of their careers.

But success will depend on more than introducing new modules or certificates. Universities must confront a fundamental question. Are the systems, structures and cultures that define higher education capable of supporting genuinely flexible learning?

The sector has already embraced the language of lifelong learning – the next step is ensuring that universities themselves are built to deliver it.


From DSC:
Long-time readers of this blog have seen this graphic of mine posted over the last 12+ years:
.

.


Also relevant/see:

What if the undergraduate journey were a four-year internship? — from timeshighereducation.com by Michelle Seref
Treating work placements and co-curricular programmes as optional or supplementary misses deeper questions about whether traditional degrees prepare students for careers. Michelle Seref explains

Attending workshops or polishing a résumé in their final semester does not make students career-ready. They need to practise how to work – how to collaborate, navigate ambiguity, manage projects and apply knowledge in context – throughout their academic experience. The reality is that career readiness is not a co-curricular programme; it is an essential part of an integrated curriculum.

To be clear, employers do not expect classrooms to become training centres. What they are asking for – implicitly and explicitly – is graduates who can function in complex environments from day one. That means graduates who can work in teams, communicate professionally with stakeholders, adapt when plans change, apply theory to real constraints and learn continuously on the job.

These capabilities do not develop through passive learning. But experiential learning is often misunderstood as a single, high-impact activity: an internship, a capstone project or study abroad. In reality, its power comes from repetition and progression. One experience introduces exposure. A sequence of experiences builds competence.

We are proposing a paradigm shift: repositioning the undergraduate journey as a four-year professional internship rather than a continuation of the K-12 classroom environment. 

.
From DSC:

The problem with this innovative idea is that faculty often are not out in the “real world.” The best chance higher ed has to deliver on this idea is via the adjunct faculty members out there. Often, they are the ones practicing what they are teaching. They are constantly pulse-checking — and actively involved with — their industries and have more up-to-date, practical knowledge.

But this is a problem for traditional institutions of higher education, which have treated their adjunct faculty members poorly through the years. Adjunct faculty members hardly make minimum wage, have no benefits, no retirement plans, etc. — plus they have little to no say in faculty senates. 

Organizational change would be a requirement.

 

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.

.


 

Want Students to Build a Healthier Relationship With Technology? Start With The Arts — from techlearning.com by Adrianna Marshall
Arts classrooms demonstrate what technology integration at its best can look like

But at a moment defined by rapid AI adoption and ongoing debates about screen time, the argument for protecting and investing in arts education needs to take on a new tone. The arts continue to be one of the most effective places in school for students to build healthier, more intentional relationships with technology.

In short, in the age of AI, we need the arts more than ever.

Digital composition software, notation tools, and recording platforms allow students to experiment, revise, and refine their ideas in ways that would have been far more time-consuming a decade ago. Students can layer tracks, hear immediate playback, annotate their own scores, and collaborate across devices. The same is true in other contexts besides music; in visual arts, for instance, a variety of digital drawing and painting platforms enable students to practice with new mediums, styles, and techniques without having to worry about supplies or messes. But in either case, the core intellectual work of looking and listening critically, understanding structure, and making aesthetic choices remains entirely human and part of the learning.


From DSC:
I agree. At one of my previous positions, I spent 10 years supervising a digital studio — helping professors and students use a variety of applications to create things. The applications were from Adobe, Apple, and a variety of smaller vendors. The deliverables could be graphics, edited soundtracks, music, videos, flyers, posters, collages, edited photographs, presentations, websites, and more. I longed for people to discover the power of multimedia to communicate their messages, tell stories, stir emotion, powerfully engage themselves (and others), and unleash their creativity.

There were several obstacles to our digital studio being more impactful at that institution. It was under the IT department, not the academic side of the house. It was in the basement of the library, where few students and faculty traveled. During those years, it was highly uncommon for faculty members to require multimedia-based assignments — so many students had to WANT to develop these skills on their own time. The majority of students didn’t see the value in developing the types of digital skills that we were trying to build…or they didn’t have the time.


Also relevant/see:


 

The Role of Faculty in the University of the Future — from er.educause.edu by Tanya Gamby, David Kil, Rachel Koblic, Paul LeBlanc, Mihnea Moldoveanu, and George Siemens
In the age of AI, the true future of higher education lies not in replacing faculty but in freeing them to do what only humans can—build meaningful relationships, cultivate wisdom, and guide students through the ethical and intellectual challenges machines cannot navigate.

Today, the work of knowledge transfer is often done better, faster, with more precision, and more patiently by AI. These systems can provide nonjudgmental, individualized learning opportunities twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Think of AI as a “genius teaching assistant” who assumes much of the work of basic knowledge transfer, unlocking learning when students get stuck and providing real-time assessment. Such a genius TA would offer faculty dashboards that update student progress, flag those who are struggling, and recommend targeted interventions. These tasks free faculty to focus on building genuine relationships with students, using the classroom to foster human skills, and curating community. This may be the great gift of AI to education. But it requires a profound reimagining of faculty roles—perhaps the single biggest hurdle to reimagining higher education, and equally its greatest opportunity.

A concerned faculty member might hear all this and conclude they are becoming obsolete. The opposite is true. The evolution of faculty roles demands more—not less—of what makes a great teacher.

This means intervening in high-impact moments when the genius TA has not unlocked learning; curating class time to lift students from knowing material to applying it in contexts that require critical thinking, judgment, and discernment; and cultivating the human skills that will be most prized in the age of AI: effective communication, constructive dialogue, empathy, creativity, and professional disposition. Most importantly, it means building genuine relationships with students—that make them feel like they matter—the kind that fuels transformation.


From DSC:
A quick comment on one of the sentences in the article, which asserts:

Centers for teaching and learning, which have long supported faculty development at many institutions, will be among the busiest places on campus in the years ahead.

I would change the word will be to should:

Centers for teaching and learning, which have long supported faculty development at many institutions, should be among the busiest places on campus in the years ahead.

For that statement to be true, centers for teaching and learning need to be well-versed in the tools and pedagogies involved, plus in learning science. Those centers need to have credibility for faculty members to value their services. And that’s just it, isn’t it? The faculty members need to see those centers for teaching and learning as having something that they lack…that they need assistance with. Otherwise, if such centers are just viewed as superfluous, nothing much will change.

Also, my experience has been that if those centers for teaching and learning are in an IT group/department, they should be moved to the academic side of the house instead. Many faculty members don’t value people from IT enough to make changes in how they teach — no matter how qualified those people are. They view those people as “IT” only.


You might also be interested in the other articles in that series:


 

This Is a Hard Time to Start a Career. These Two Words Can Help. — a gifted article from nytimes.com by Jodi Kantor
Advice on building a rewarding work life, even amid employment gloom.

If you’re sweating about what field to enter, here are a few things you can do now. Buy a cheap, thin notebook. Keep it on you. Every week, make a practice of writing down which actions you enjoy and which ones you hate, whom you like being around and whom you can’t stand. Keep running lists of what you’re good at and what ideas move you. Notice yourself.

Look to your friends instead. Think about what roles you take on with them: math tutor, party planner, psychologist, workout coach. These answers often reveal truths that our résumés do not. In social relationships, we aren’t bound by suffocating expectations about our future. Our friends have needs, and by noticing how we respond to them, we can learn who we are.

There is a wiser way to seize the future, which is to think about need. What is your own assessment of what society will need most during your working years, the next four or five decades? What kind of care; what kind of products; what kind of information?

The people I see thriving at work are the ones who chased some bigger need — not imposed by hollow conventional wisdom, but articulated through independent observation. Craft gives their work authority. Need gives it propulsion.

 
© 2025 | Daniel Christian