AI has the potential to close one of the oldest gaps in legal practice, the resource divide between well-funded firms and the lawyers representing people who can't afford one. Whether it does depends on how law schools teach it.

In a new piece for Texas Lawyer, Steno Director of Legal Solutions Joe Stephens suggests that law school clinics are uniquely positioned to lead that integration. As a clinical professor at Texas Tech University School of Law and Chief Public Defender of the Caprock Regional Public Defender Office, the only public defender office in the country based inside a law school, he's seen AI help under-resourced students prepare at levels that rival private firms. But AI simulations can't replicate the human dynamics of real legal practice. Joe writes:

Simulations have limits, not least the irreducibly human aspects of legal practice: power dynamics, credibility contests, ego, and the deep fear clients feel when their freedom is at risk.

Drawing on the ABA Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence's Year 2 Report, Joe makes the case that if law schools treat AI as an elective rather than core curriculum, it won't level the playing field, it will tilt it even further. And he's unambiguous about what responsible use looks like when a client's freedom is on the line:

If a student cannot explain why they trust an AI result, they should not use it. This principle belongs in the classroom as much as the courtroom—students should be graded not just on what they produce with AI, but on how well they can explain and defend it.

Read the full piece on Texas Lawyer.