Clinic teachers face a wide range of considerations and decisions about how to respond to the increasing availability and use of AI tools. Choices range from minimal “damage control” to full-blown incorporation of AI into the pedagogical and practice missions of their clinics, and many points in between.  Each possible choice represents a balance between preparing students with the knowledge and skills they need for the practice world they will find themselves in and the traditional “learning and practicing core skills” methodologies of clinical teaching.

A basic continuum of possibilities might include:

• Ignoring the issue and hoping for the best.
• Implementing clinic policies and providing guidance to students about expectations for and limitations on any use of AI tools in clinic work. This step seems essential since many students inevitably will turn to ChatGPT and other AI tools for help with research, generating ideas, drafting, reviewing and revising drafts, and more, whether we like it or not). Given that, better to have transparency and an open dialogue about AI use, risks, and ethics. 
• Considering the use of AI detection software or other means of monitoring student compliance with clinic policies, and the various downsides of using such software
• Preparing students for practice by familiarizing them with basic AI tools used in legal practice, potential applications and benefits, the serious risks of misusing AI (including on clients and access to justice), court/agency policies and ethical obligations regarding the use of AI, etc. (this is more about teaching students about AI rather than teaching how to use AI)
• Curating readings for and brainstorming with students the potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of using AI in clinic work and, in proper clinic fashion, empowering them to think about the role, if any, that AI should play in their clinic experience. Consider approaching AI conversations and use with humility and a spirit of collboration, recognizing that most clinic instructors have a great deal to learn about the technology and that most students know more about and have used the tools more than us. There is value in being explicit that everyone is learning together and think and collaboratAI can and should affect traditional clinical teaching.
  • Understanding that the use of AI in clinic pedagogy and practice can perpetuate or exacerbate unequal access, and ensuring that students who are less tech savvy and or can’t afford access to more capable AI tools are not disadvantaged.
• Employing carefully designed and monitored applications of legal AI tools for specific clinical practice tasks such as (in rough order of significance) brainstorming and idea generation (helping with writer’s block/blank-page problems), answering questions and limited research, discovery tasks, routine document drafting, drafts of substantive documents, editing and revising, preparation for settlement discussions and arguments, and so forth (this is teaching how to use AI, though on a high and general level), ideally followed by extensive student-supervisor evaluation and reflection of how the tools performed for the legal task and how they affected student learning.
  • Whether to use AI at all and, if so, how and where to use it will vary across clinics and practice areas. We should think carefully about how AI might add value to different clinic’s missions, pedagogical priorities, client needs, focus on access to justice, etc.