.png)
Outrageous! UChicago Law School bans AI in class, are top elite schools collectively "going backwards"
Recently, the University of Chicago Law School officially announced a major new policy: starting from the Fall 2026 semester, all first-year law students are completely prohibited from using laptops, tablets, mobile phones, and all other electronic devices in class!
That's right, it's not just restricting AI, it's directly banning all devices altogether! This is probably the most hardcore AI prevention and control operation among US law schools at this stage.
While others are embracing AI to improve efficiency, top elite schools are actively "returning to the past." Which makes us ask, is this educational progress, or are top elite schools collectively going backwards?
UChicago Law School's "Anti-AI New Policy"
Many people thought UChicago's new rule was simply "banning ChatGPT in class," but the reality is far more stringent than imagined. It can be called a comprehensive, completely thorough "AI de-reliance reform":
Classroom devices completely cleared, rejecting AI "cheats"
The new policy explicitly requires: In the first-year core courses (Civil Procedure, Torts, Constitutional Law, etc.), all personal electronic devices are strictly prohibited in class.
Phones, tablets, and laptops are not allowed to be touched, completely putting an end to students secretly searching for cases during class, asking AI to generate answers for classroom Q&A in advance, and copying AI scripts to survive Socratic questioning.
Exams entirely offline, eliminating AI cheating loopholes
In addition to classroom control, all first-year exams will transition to a purely offline mode with no internet, no electronic files, and no apps. This completely blocks all shortcuts for students to use AI to organize test points before exams, retrieve answers during exams, and polish content after exams, forcing students to rely purely on their own knowledge reserves.
Addition of in-person oral exams
An offline, in-person oral exam session has been added to the major research paper required for graduation. Students must respond on the spot to random questions from professors and deconstruct their paper's logic, argumentative basis, and legal viewpoints live. The Dean of UChicago Law School explained that in a courtroom, there will never be a robot to help you debate! AI can write documents, do searches, and organize case files, but on-the-spot adaptability, oral debate, live maneuvering, and accurate judgment—abilities that require human empathy, experience, and quick reactions—are currently impossible for AI to replicate.
Not entirely banning AI: "Learn to think first, then learn to use tools"
The school clarified that students can use AI outside of class for literature retrieval, first draft revisions, and oral exam prep; upper-year elective and practical courses will also offer specialized teaching on AI's legal applications. However, lower-year students must first practice independent thinking and solidify foundational skills before using AI to boost efficiency in their upper years.
Inventory of AI Bans Across Top US Law Schools
Don't mistakenly think only UChicago is "anti-AI"! Starting in the summer of 2026, top US law schools are collectively tightening their AI policies, shifting from a laissez-faire approach to strict control, forming an educational trend of "AI de-reliance."
UC Berkeley School of Law: The strictest AI ban in the US
Starting in summer 2026, AI participation is completely prohibited for all credit-bearing assignments and exams. The ban covers: conceptualizing topics, outlining, drafting, revising, translating, proofreading, and even using AI for grammar correction! Students are also strictly forbidden from uploading courseware or classroom materials to AI tools to prevent academic leaks and ghostwriting. However, Berkeley doesn't reject AI entirely; they actually opened the nation's first specialized LLM degree in AI Law to cultivate high-level legal tech talents.
UT Austin School of Law: Return to the Socratic method
Austin's approach is highly aligned with UChicago's, focusing on "rejecting screen dependence and returning to deep critical thinking." Professors are required to maximize class time with high-intensity teacher-student Q&A and debates, stopping students from hiding behind screens or relying on AI to fake their way through participation.
Harvard, Duke, UCLA, and other Top Schools: Tightening academic rules
A host of top law schools—including Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Michigan, and Virginia—have classified AI ghostwriting and AI-assisted assignments as academic integrity violations. Georgetown University is even more specific: students are only allowed to use AI for brainstorming, but it is strictly prohibited from participating in any writing or drafting.
Across the United States, top law schools have reached a unified consensus: AI can be a workplace weapon, but it absolutely cannot be an academic shortcut.
Have elite schools seen through the truth of the industry or are top elite schools collectively going backwards?
Seeing this, many students might wonder: Since AI is so popular and everyone uses it at work, why are schools going against the grain? Some even complain this is complacent and hinders students from keeping up with the times. But behind these strict bans are brutal workplace failures and industry pain points.
The most fatal problem with AI is the well-known "AI hallucination!"
Tools like ChatGPT and Claude often conjure up non-existent cases, statutes, and precedents out of thin air, presenting them with perfect logic and professional jargon that ordinary people cannot spot as fake.
A major case previously shocked the internet: When the well-known law firm Goldberg Segalla represented a case, a lawyer used ChatGPT to generate trial documents. The AI fabricated non-existent court precedents, and the lawyer submitted them without verifying. Ultimately, the firm was severely punished, and the lawyer was fired and banned from the industry.
Another outrageous lawsuit involved Nippon Life Insurance's US branch directly suing OpenAI, accusing ChatGPT of practicing law without a license. A client relied entirely on ChatGPT to generate legal documents for a lawsuit, and the baseless filings cost the insurance company $300,000 in response fees.
These failures confirm one truth: AI can output content, but it will not take responsibility for the results. The user always pays the price.
Furthermore, many students mistakenly believe that relying on AI early to work faster will help them keep up with the workplace. The reality is the opposite: the people currently being laid off by law firms are the entry-level workers who can only mechanically fill out templates, organize documents, and search statutes.
The truly high-paying, irreplaceable legal talents possess core skills AI cannot replicate: live debate, logical reasoning, risk judgment, negotiation tactics, human relations, and case deduction. AI can do 80% of the mechanical foundation work, but the remaining 20% (core decision-making and live adaptability) determines your salary and career ceiling. If students rely on AI and give up independent thinking, they will just become "appendages to AI tools" and be the first to be eliminated by the market.
Top elite schools aren't resisting technology; they are preventing tools from backfiring. Banning AI for beginners forces them to build foundational logic, develop critical thinking, and learn to spot AI errors. Teaching AI in later years shows them how to utilize tools efficiently, leaving time for high-level decision-making.
Having the confidence to think independently first, before having the ability to master AI—this is the core logic of top-tier education.
Final Thoughts
UChicago's move is less of a "regression" and more of a radical experiment. In 2026—a year when AI can pass the bar exam and draft legal documents—law schools are still making students turn off their devices, face the professor, and answer questions on the spot. It feels a bit retro.
But think about it: when AI can do 80% of legal paperwork, what is the lawyer's remaining 20%? It's judgment, quick wits, the aura of negotiating with a client, and the eloquence to persuade a jury. ChatGPT can't replace that right now.
As UChicago says: "I don't think there will be robots defending us in court anytime soon. The ones standing before the judge and jury for oral arguments are still humans."
Is this progress or a step backward? We'll find out when this "disconnected generation" graduates and we see if they can outperform AI.
**Want to Learn More About Our Programs? **
Feel free to contact us through the following channels:
Official LINE: @panoedu
Phone: 02-8771-3190 / 0912-090-325
、
Comments