The University of Chicago Law School will prohibit incoming first-year students from using laptops and mobile phones in required courses as part of a sweeping new artificial intelligence policy designed to strengthen foundational legal reasoning before students begin using AI tools in their legal education.
The policy, unveiled on Thursday, is among the most restrictive AI frameworks adopted by a U.S. law school and reflects a growing debate within legal education over how to balance the benefits of generative AI with the need to preserve core analytical and advocacy skills.
According to the law school, the restrictions are intended to ensure that students “actually learn to think critically, strategically, and independently without relying on AI” before they are taught how to integrate the technology into legal practice.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 20 (June 8 – Sept 5, 2026).
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Dean Adam Chilton said he was unaware of any other U.S. law school that has imposed a blanket ban on laptops and phones across all required first-year courses.
Ban Targets Foundational Legal Training
The new rules will apply to all mandatory first-year subjects, including constitutional law, contracts, torts, civil procedure, criminal law and property, where students traditionally develop the analytical framework that underpins legal education.
Under the policy, students will not be permitted to use laptops or mobile phones during class. Instead, professors may appoint designated “scribes” who will use electronic devices to take shared notes that can later be distributed to classmates.
The law school also plans to administer all examinations for required first-year courses in person without access to the internet, electronic documents, AI tools or other digital applications. The measures will initially be introduced on a pilot basis during the upcoming academic year.
The policy comes as generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini become increasingly capable of summarizing cases, drafting legal arguments, conducting legal research and generating written submissions.
While many law firms have begun integrating AI into their operations to improve productivity, legal educators remain divided over how extensively students should rely on the technology during training.
Chilton said the school’s objective is not to reject AI but to ensure students first master the reasoning skills that lawyers need when technology is unavailable or inappropriate.
“AI is forcing us to ask ourselves, ‘What are the essentially human skills that we should be training that AI can’t replace?'” Chilton told Reuters.
He said lawyers are frequently required to answer judges’ questions during court proceedings, advise clients in real time, or negotiate with opposing counsel without the opportunity to consult AI systems. Those situations, he argued, require independent legal reasoning that cannot be outsourced to technology.
AI Is Still Part of The Curriculum
Although the policy limits AI use during foundational coursework, the University of Chicago is not eliminating AI from legal education. Instead, the school plans to introduce the technology in stages.
Students enrolled in the mandatory first-year legal research and writing course will first learn to write legal memoranda and other documents without AI assistance before later incorporating AI tools into the drafting process.
The approach is intended to ensure students understand legal writing principles before using AI to enhance efficiency.
Beyond the first year, the law school has expanded AI instruction through specialized upper-level courses and established an AI laboratory where students can develop and experiment with legal technology tools.
Faculty members teaching elective courses will also retain flexibility to establish their own AI policies, although the laptop ban and in-class examination requirements will remain the default position unless professors choose otherwise.
Part of A Wider Debate In Legal Education
The University of Chicago’s decision comes as law schools across the United States grapple with the rapid emergence of generative AI. Earlier this year, the University of California, Berkeley School of Law introduced strict limits on student use of AI in academic work.
Berkeley’s policy sparked debate within the legal profession, with some critics arguing that it restricts legitimate educational uses of AI at a time when law firms increasingly expect graduates to be proficient with the technology.
Major law firms have invested heavily in AI-powered legal research, contract review and document analysis platforms, making technological literacy a valuable skill for new lawyers.
At the same time, judges, legal academics and bar associations have expressed concerns about AI-generated legal errors, fabricated case citations and overreliance on automated systems that may produce inaccurate or incomplete legal analysis.
Several courts have already introduced rules requiring lawyers to verify AI-generated legal filings or disclose when AI has been used in preparing court documents.
Chilton acknowledged that reactions among incoming students are likely to be mixed, particularly because laptops have become standard tools in university classrooms.
However, he said previous experiments in which individual professors prohibited laptops had generally received positive feedback after students experienced fewer distractions and greater classroom engagement.