How the legal profession is wrestling with AI — practice, policy, education, and the harder questions about what AI should and shouldn’t do in a field built on careful reasoning.

The law is uniquely positioned in this moment. Lawyers are trained to think slowly, defend their reasoning, and tolerate ambiguity. AI promises speed, plausibility, and confident output. The collision is genuinely interesting, because both sides have something true to offer — and the practical question is when to use which.

This section will follow how the field actually figures it out — not the marketing version, but how working attorneys, law schools, ethics boards, and courts are deciding what AI belongs in legal practice and what doesn’t.

First in the series

The first article looks at two top U.S. law schools that reached opposite conclusions on AI in legal education this year. UC Berkeley School of Law banned AI from coursework and exams. Penn State Dickinson Law gave every student access to Harvey, a legal AI platform used in working practice. Both decisions are defensible — and the disagreement says something important about where the field actually is.

Two law schools, opposite answers: what AI is really asking of us →

More pieces coming — on AI in courtrooms, the ethics rules that haven’t caught up yet, the billing model implications, and how solo and small-firm practitioners are adapting.