Ramsi Woodcock, the suspended law professor and an associate professor at the university’s J. David Rosenberg College of Law, alleges that university officials removed him from teaching, barred him from campus, and initiated a disciplinary inquiry solely because of his critical views of Israel’s government and military actions. According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the investigation violates his First Amendment rights and lacks the basic due-process protections guaranteed to public-university faculty.

Woodcock’s lawsuit frames the probe as part of a broader climate of political pressure. He contends the university acted in response to heightened scrutiny from Kentucky lawmakers following the passage of a state law aimed at combating antisemitism on campus. In his view, the law is being used to suppress pro-Palestinian speech even when expressed by faculty members sharing academic or political perspectives in external forums.

Suspended Law Professor Cites Campus ‘Chilling Effect

According to the lawsuit, the investigation against Woodcock has sent shockwaves through the campus community. Faculty members allegedly fear disciplinary retaliation for expressing views related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and students have reportedly grown hesitant to speak openly about Palestinian advocacy.

Woodcock’s complaint asserts that “protected political speech is now treated as misconduct” and argues that the university’s disciplinary mechanisms are being used to police viewpoints rather than address genuine wrongdoing. He claims his criticism of Israel was made in online forums, social commentary, and conference discussions not within the classroom or directed at students.

One of the focal points of the controversy is Woodcock’s online “Petition for Military Action Against Israel,” which appears to have drawn significant attention from outside groups and elected officials. Woodcock maintains the petition was political rhetoric protected by the First Amendment, though critics have portrayed it as inflammatory.

The filing also notes that Woodcock is of Arab descent and argues that racial bias contributed to the university’s willingness to accept accusations against him without evidence of actual harm on campus.

Suspended Law Professor: University Says Speech Has Limits

University of Kentucky spokesperson Jay Blanton pushed back on Woodcock’s narrative, stating that the professor has not been formally suspended. Instead, Blanton says, Woodcock has been placed on temporary reassignment pending the outcome of the investigation—an action he asserts is not punitive but procedural.

In the university’s view, Woodcock’s public statements may have crossed a line into creating a hostile or unsafe learning environment, particularly amid heightened concerns about antisemitism and harassment on college campuses nationwide. “Free-speech rights do not extend to conduct that undermines the safety and well-being of the campus community,” the university said.

That stance reflects a broader trend across U.S. institutions: universities attempting to balance academic freedom with compliance with new state and federal directives aimed at curbing antisemitism. Since the Israel-Gaza war intensified, congressional committees and state legislatures have expanded their oversight of higher-education institutions, pushing them to adopt stricter approaches to speech perceived as threatening or discriminatory.

Part of a National Pattern of Faculty Discipline

Woodcock’s case is not isolated. In 2025, at least two other U.S. law professors faced investigations, suspensions, or contract non-renewals following public commentary about Israel or campus activism. While universities have emphasized safety concerns, critics argue that these actions amount to political suppression.

The lawsuit also lands during President Donald Trump’s second term, during which the administration has aggressively promoted directives targeting what it views as antisemitism tied to pro-Palestinian activism. Universities, under pressure from federal funding requirements and public scrutiny, have increasingly disciplined faculty and students connected to statements deemed hostile, even in traditional academic or political contexts.

Supporters of Woodcock warn that the outcome of this lawsuit could shape the boundaries of protected speech for faculty at public universities. If courts determine that political expression outside the classroom can justify disciplinary action, the ruling could significantly narrow long-standing academic-freedom protections.

What Comes Next in the Legal Fight

Woodcock’s suit requests an injunction halting the university’s investigation and restoring his full academic duties. The court has not yet scheduled a hearing, but the university is expected to defend its actions by arguing that the inquiry concerns professional conduct, not political viewpoints.

For now, Woodcock remains barred from campus and continues to teach remotely, according to materials referenced in the lawsuit. His complaint seeks to establish that the university’s actions constitute unlawful retaliation and violate foundational constitutional freedoms.

The case may take months or even years to reach a definitive resolution. But whatever the outcome, it is already contributing to the ongoing national debate about speech, identity, and political discourse at American universities.

Looking for Your Next Legal Career Move?

Stay ahead of industry developments and explore thousands of active legal openings nationwide. Visit LawCrossing.com to browse opportunities, track hiring trends, and position yourself for your next career step. Start your search today.

See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile

The post Suspended Law Professor Challenges Israel Probe first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A recent comprehensive study reveals a concerning trend: many law students with disabilities feel underserved and unsupported by their law schools. As the legal profession increasingly strives for diversity and inclusion, this gap in support threatens to undermine efforts to create equitable educational environments for all future lawyers.

Growing Awareness of Disability in Legal Education

The landscape of law school demographics has shifted in recent years, with more students openly identifying as having disabilities, including mental health conditions. According to a survey of nearly 12,000 law students, approximately one in five students report having a disability, with the majority indicating conditions such as anxiety, depression, ADHD, or other developmental or psychological challenges. This increased visibility calls for law schools to rise to the challenge of accommodating a diverse range of student needs beyond traditional academic supports.

The Reality of Law Students With Disabilities

Despite existing federal mandates such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which require educational institutions to provide reasonable accommodations, many law students with disabilities continue to face significant barriers. These include difficulties accessing appropriate accommodations, stigma, and a lack of tailored support services that address their unique challenges.

The survey data illustrates this divide clearly: while approximately 70% of non-disabled law students express satisfaction with the academic and career support their schools provide, only about 62% of students with disabilities feel similarly supported. The difference may appear small at first glance, but it translates to thousands of students who feel their law schools fall short of providing the environment they need to succeed.

Areas of Concern: Academic and Emotional Support

Students with disabilities report lower levels of satisfaction not only with academic advising but also with mental health and career counseling services. For many, the intense pressures of law school exacerbate existing mental health conditions, making access to comprehensive mental health support critical. However, the survey indicates that many institutions have not yet fully developed or implemented programs tailored to these needs.

Furthermore, students with disabilities often express a feeling of exclusion or a lack of belonging on campus. This sense of isolation can negatively affect their academic performance and overall well-being. Some students report that even when accommodations are granted, they feel stigmatized or singled out, discouraging them from fully engaging with their law school communities.

Legal Obligations vs. Practical Implementation

While laws like the ADA set clear standards, enforcement and compliance vary widely among institutions. Many law schools focus primarily on ensuring compliance by providing exam accommodations, such as extra time or a quiet room. However, this approach often neglects the broader spectrum of supports that students with disabilities require to thrive—such as adaptive technology, flexible attendance policies, and accessible career development opportunities.

One expert notes, “Legal compliance alone is not enough. Law schools must foster an inclusive culture where students with disabilities feel genuinely supported and empowered.” This means moving beyond a reactive model of accommodation to a proactive approach that anticipates and addresses barriers before they become obstacles.

The Importance of Inclusion in the Legal Profession

Supporting students with disabilities in law school is more than a matter of legal obligation; it is essential for the health and diversity of the legal profession itself. Lawyers with disabilities bring critical perspectives and experiences that enrich the profession and improve the delivery of justice. When law schools fail to adequately support these students, the profession risks losing valuable talent and perpetuating systemic inequalities.

Organizations such as the American Bar Association (ABA) have highlighted the need for greater inclusivity, urging law schools to expand efforts around accessibility and accommodation. These calls align with broader diversity initiatives aimed at increasing representation of marginalized groups within the legal community.

Steps Toward Improvement: What Law Schools Can Do

Experts and advocates recommend several concrete steps law schools can take to better support students with disabilities:

1. Develop Proactive Policies
   Rather than waiting for students to request accommodations, law schools should proactively identify common barriers and implement inclusive policies and practices. This can include flexible course formats, accessible materials, and universal design principles that benefit all students.
2. Enhance Faculty and Staff Training
   Faculty, administrators, and support staff need regular training on disability awareness and inclusive teaching strategies. Understanding the diverse ways disabilities can affect learning and participation is key to creating a supportive academic environment.
3. Expand Support Services Beyond Exams
   Accommodations should extend beyond testing environments to encompass holistic academic support, career counseling, and mental health services. Offering accessible internships, networking events, and mentoring opportunities can help students with disabilities transition more smoothly into the profession.
4. Encourage Open Communication and Community Building
   Law schools should foster environments where students feel comfortable discussing their needs without fear of stigma. Creating support groups or affinity organizations can promote connection and advocacy among students with disabilities.
5. Regularly Assess and Improve Support Systems
   Institutions should collect data and feedback from students with disabilities to monitor the effectiveness of accommodations and support programs. Continuous improvement based on student input is essential to meeting evolving needs.

The Role of Students and Advocates

While institutions have the primary responsibility to create accessible environments, students and advocates also play crucial roles. Empowering students with disabilities to self-advocate, participate in leadership roles, and collaborate with administration can help ensure that policies reflect lived experiences and practical realities.

Looking Ahead

The current state of support for law students with disabilities highlights a significant opportunity for growth in legal education. Law schools committed to equity and inclusion must recognize the unique challenges faced by these students and respond with comprehensive, thoughtful strategies.

Investing in disability support is not just compliance—it is a commitment to nurturing the next generation of legal professionals who represent the full diversity of society. By doing so, law schools help build a legal profession that is not only more inclusive but also stronger, more empathetic, and better equipped to serve justice.

Looking to navigate law school with confidence or explore career opportunities designed to support your unique needs? Visit LawCrossing — the premier resource for law students and legal professionals seeking jobs, internships, and valuable guidance. Whether you’re a student with disabilities or simply want to stay informed on the latest legal career trends, LawCrossing has the tools and support you need to succeed. Don’t miss out — start your journey today!

See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile

The post Law Schools Fall Short in Supporting Students with Disabilities, Study Finds first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Criminal law continues to be one of the most dynamic and impactful fields within the legal profession. Whether your passion lies in defending the accused, prosecuting on behalf of the state, or shaping criminal justice policy, choosing the right law school can significantly influence your career trajectory. For 2025, certain U.S. law schools have distinguished themselves by offering exceptional programs in criminal law — blending rigorous academics, practical training, and extensive professional resources.

This article highlights the top law schools for criminal law, drawing primarily from the 2025 preLaw magazine’s Criminal Law Honor Roll, an authoritative source that assesses law schools based on the depth and breadth of their criminal law offerings.

What Makes a Top Criminal Law Program?

Before diving into the list of top schools, it’s important to understand the criteria used to rank these institutions. According to preLaw, law schools were evaluated on multiple factors that reflect the holistic criminal law experience for students:

• Specialized Concentrations or Tracks (30%): Schools offering dedicated criminal law tracks or concentrations that allow students to focus their coursework and skills development specifically in this area.
• Clinical Programs (24%): Opportunities for students to participate in live-client clinics, representing defendants, victims, or government entities in real criminal cases.
• Research Centers (12%): Presence of dedicated criminal law research centers or institutes that facilitate policy research, public education, and advocacy.
• Externships (12%): Placement opportunities in prosecutorial offices, public defender agencies, courts, or related organizations that provide hands-on legal experience.
• Law Journals (9%): Availability of journals focused on criminal law or criminal justice topics, enabling students to engage in scholarly writing and analysis.
• Student Organizations (8%): Active student groups or societies focused on criminal law and criminal justice reform.
• Certificates and Credentials (5%): Formal certifications recognizing advanced study or specialization in criminal law.

Additional points were awarded for unique or innovative programming related to criminal law.

This multi-dimensional evaluation ensures that the schools recognized do not merely teach criminal law in the classroom, but provide students with meaningful engagement in practice and policy.

The Top Law Schools for Criminal Law in 2025

Based on these criteria, the following law schools earned an A+ rating on the Criminal Law Honor Roll and are widely regarded as among the best places to study criminal law this year:

• Brooklyn Law School (NY)
• Case Western Reserve University School of Law (OH)
• LMU Loyola Law School (CA)
• Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (IL)
• Oklahoma City University School of Law (OK)
• Rutgers Law School (NJ)
• UC Berkeley School of Law (CA)
• University of California, San Francisco Law (CA)
• University of Minnesota Law School (MN)
• University of Texas School of Law (TX)
• Western State College of Law (CA)

Notable Highlights and Strengths

• Brooklyn Law School has earned special recognition for its robust public interest programs and clinical offerings, making it a prime choice for students interested in government service, public defense, or prosecutorial work. It was ranked No. 2 for public service in criminal law by preLaw, thanks to its well-established ties with New York’s legal community and prolific placement in internships and clerkships.
• Northwestern Pritzker School of Law is noted for its rigorous academic curriculum paired with multiple research centers focused on criminal justice reform and legal ethics. The school provides strong support for students seeking careers in both prosecution and defense.
• UC Berkeley School of Law stands out for its interdisciplinary approach, integrating criminal law studies with public policy and social justice initiatives. Berkeley’s extensive externship programs in California courts offer invaluable real-world experience.
• Rutgers Law School offers an outstanding clinical program emphasizing community-based defense and prosecution, alongside influential criminal law journals.

Why Experience and Networking Matter in Criminal Law Education

Criminal law is unique among legal fields because it is deeply rooted in public service, advocacy, and often high-stakes courtroom work. Aspiring criminal law attorneys benefit tremendously from early exposure to actual cases and legal practitioners. These hands-on experiences build critical skills such as litigation, negotiation, client counseling, and ethical decision-making.

Law schools with strong clinical programs and externships give students the chance to represent clients, work alongside prosecutors and defenders, and participate in trials or plea negotiations. This practical training is often decisive in career placement and future success.

Moreover, active student organizations focused on criminal justice allow students to connect with like-minded peers, attend speaker events with top criminal law attorneys and judges, and engage in advocacy or reform efforts. Law journals dedicated to criminal law scholarship enhance students’ research and writing capabilities, making them more competitive in the job market.

How to Choose the Right Criminal Law Program for You

If you’re considering a specialization in criminal law, ask yourself:

• What type of criminal law do I want to practice? Some schools emphasize public defense and social justice, while others focus more on prosecution or corporate white-collar crime.
• How important is clinical experience? Does the school provide robust live-client clinics or externships with local courts and agencies?
• Are there opportunities to engage in criminal justice research or policy? Look for research centers or faculty with expertise in criminal law reform.
• Will the school help me build a network in the criminal law community? Internships, alumni connections, and student groups matter.
• Do I want a formal certificate or concentration to showcase my expertise?

The Future of Criminal Law Education

With evolving societal needs, changes in legislation, and increasing attention to criminal justice reform, the study of criminal law is more important than ever. Schools that combine rigorous academics, practical experience, and social impact prepare students not just to enter the field, but to become leaders shaping the future of criminal justice.

Final Thoughts

For 2025, the law schools listed above represent some of the finest institutions for students passionate about criminal law. By offering a blend of coursework, clinical experience, research, and community engagement, these schools equip graduates with the skills, knowledge, and professional networks to succeed in a competitive and vital legal field.

Prospective students should carefully research each program, visit campuses if possible, and consider how each school’s strengths align with their career goals. Choosing the right law school for criminal law will be a foundational step toward a meaningful and rewarding legal career.

Explore these programs further and prepare to embark on a transformative journey in criminal law this year! Visit Lawcrossing.com.

See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile

The post Leading U.S. Law Schools for Criminal Law in 2025 first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Across the nation, law schools are facing growing scrutiny for how they represent judicial clerkship opportunities to students. According to recent reporting, many institutions are overstating both the accessibility and frequency of these coveted positions—creating false expectations among students about their career prospects after graduation.

Judicial clerkships have long been viewed as prestigious and career-boosting roles that provide invaluable experience for aspiring litigators and future judges. However, as new data and expert voices highlight, these opportunities are far rarer than many schools imply. Behind glossy brochures and celebratory announcements lies a truth that’s less glamorous: only a small fraction of law graduates actually secure clerkships, and even fewer land them in the federal courts.

The Reality Behind the Prestige

Law schools often promote clerkships as a hallmark of post-graduate success, using the accomplishments of a select few alumni to bolster their institutional prestige. They feature stories of graduates who clerk for federal judges, Supreme Court justices, or prestigious appellate courts—without clarifying how statistically exceptional these outcomes are.

According to data from the American Bar Association (ABA) and the National Association for Law Placement (NALP), the percentage of law graduates who secure federal judicial clerkships is typically less than 10% nationwide. Some elite schools like Yale, Harvard, and Stanford account for a disproportionate number of these positions, while the vast majority of other institutions place very few graduates in such roles each year.

Despite these facts, many law schools continue to highlight clerkships as an attainable milestone for nearly any hardworking student, glossing over how competitive and exclusionary the process truly is. Critics argue that this practice amounts to a marketing tactic designed to attract prospective students and justify rising tuition costs.

What Schools Don’t Tell You

While no law school explicitly lies about clerkships, their omissions can be misleading. Promotional materials and career office statistics often fail to differentiate between federal and state clerkships, or between one-year appointments and long-term career positions. They also may not disclose how many graduates actually applied for clerkships compared to how many successfully landed them.

Some of the key facts frequently downplayed include:

• Extreme selectivity: Federal clerkships are among the most competitive positions in the legal field. Judges often prefer applicants from the top of their class at top-ranked schools with strong recommendations from faculty or previous clerks.
• Short-term nature: Many clerkships last only a year or two, after which clerks must re-enter a competitive job market.
• Unequal institutional support: Not all schools offer robust clerkship programs or mentoring resources. Some provide specialized faculty committees and mock interviews, while others offer little more than generic guidance.
• Geographic concentration: The majority of federal clerkships are located in major metropolitan areas or judicial hubs, making them less accessible to students from regional law schools.

By presenting clerkships as broadly attainable, schools risk misleading students into making costly decisions—such as taking on significant debt—based on unrealistic expectations of career advancement.

The Consequences for Students

The implications of these misrepresentations extend beyond mere disappointment. Many students enter law school under the belief that clerkships are a natural next step after graduation, only to find themselves competing against thousands of equally qualified peers nationwide. When the majority are unsuccessful, they may feel as though they failed personally rather than recognizing how narrow the odds truly are.

This disconnect can have emotional and financial consequences. Graduates who pin their hopes on clerkships may delay applying for other legal positions, missing early hiring windows for law firms, government agencies, or public interest organizations. Others may feel pressure to pursue unpaid or underpaid internships to strengthen their résumés for future clerkship cycles—exacerbating the financial strain of student loans.

Legal education experts argue that this cycle reflects a deeper problem: law schools prioritizing reputation and rankings over transparency. When clerkship statistics are used as marketing tools, they distort the educational landscape and obscure what most students can realistically achieve.

How Students Can Protect Themselves

Aspiring clerks should approach law school messaging with healthy skepticism and do their own research before forming career expectations. Here are a few steps to take:

1. Scrutinize the data: Ask your school for detailed clerkship placement numbers, including federal versus state positions, duration, and court levels.
2. Understand the competition: Federal clerkships typically go to graduates from top-ranked schools or those with exceptional academic performance.
3. Diversify your goals: Clerkships are prestigious, but not the only valuable path. Litigation, public service, and corporate law careers can also provide substantial professional growth.
4. Seek mentorship early: Connect with alumni who have clerked to understand the real demands of the application process.
5. Ask for transparency: Push your school’s career office to clarify how many students apply, how many are successful, and what level of support is truly available.

The Call for Honesty and Reform

Ultimately, the issue boils down to transparency. Law schools owe students accurate and complete information—not just selective success stories. The legal education community must confront the ethical tension between marketing ambition and providing realistic outcomes.

If institutions continue to exaggerate clerkship accessibility, they risk eroding trust among students and alumni alike. By contrast, schools that offer honest data and candid guidance empower students to make informed, strategic career decisions.

As the cost of legal education continues to climb, students deserve to know the truth about where their degrees can realistically take them. Judicial clerkships may remain an admirable goal—but law schools must stop pretending they’re within everyone’s reach.

Stay informed about trends and transparency in legal education by visiting LawCrossing, where you can explore verified data on legal careers, clerkships, and hiring trends.

See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile

The post Law Schools Accused of Misleading Students About Judicial Clerkships first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In an increasingly competitive legal hiring market, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP has raised the stakes. The elite New York–based law firm is offering a $25,000 incentive to select law students who commit early to join its Summer 2027 program, provided they spend the year before the internship working in government, academia, or nonprofit organizations.

The offer underscores the lengths to which top firms are now willing to go to attract and secure the brightest minds in the nation’s most prestigious law schools. In what has become an arms race for talent, large law firms—often referred to collectively as Big Law—are seeking innovative ways to stand out in a highly compressed recruiting environment.

A New Approach to Early Recruiting

Davis Polk announced the offer in a LinkedIn post, positioning it as an opportunity for students with an interest in public service and meaningful legal experience. The post encouraged students to apply now for the 2027 summer associate class—well ahead of the traditional recruiting calendar.

This proactive approach represents a shift in timing that could have a ripple effect across the legal recruiting landscape. Typically, large law firms begin outreach to second-year law students (2Ls) after their first-year grades are released, a metric long used to evaluate academic performance and predict future success. However, by opening its process earlier, Davis Polk is betting on identifying and engaging high-potential candidates even before those grades come in.

The early recruiting push also gives Davis Polk a chance to lock in top talent before other leading firms—such as Cravath, Skadden, or Latham & Watkins—make their own moves. It’s a preemptive strike that reflects both strategic foresight and an acknowledgment of how competitive the hiring landscape has become.

Rewarding Experience Beyond the Classroom

The firm’s $25,000 incentive specifically targets students who commit to spending the year before their summer associate position in government, academia, or nonprofit work. The intention appears to be twofold: first, to reward candidates who demonstrate civic engagement and public-interest commitment; and second, to encourage well-rounded legal training that extends beyond private practice.

For students, this requirement could be seen as a win-win scenario. Those who take advantage of the offer not only gain a generous financial incentive but also acquire valuable professional experience in the public or academic sectors—experience that may enrich their perspectives as future Big Law attorneys.

Davis Polk’s approach recognizes the value of real-world exposure in shaping better lawyers. Law students who engage in government or nonprofit work often develop practical skills and client sensitivity that complement the analytical rigor gained in law school. In an era where clients increasingly expect lawyers to understand broader social and regulatory dynamics, this kind of diverse experience can be a major asset.

Big Law’s Intensifying Battle for Talent

The move from Davis Polk also reveals an important truth: Big Law’s competition for top students has never been fiercer. With elite law firms vying for a finite pool of exceptional candidates from top schools such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Columbia, early recruitment and generous incentives are becoming key differentiators.

In recent years, law firms have experimented with creative approaches to draw in young talent. Some have increased summer associate pay, others have streamlined offer timelines, and a few have even introduced mentorship programs or early-access networking events. Davis Polk’s $25,000 offer adds a new dimension—a direct financial reward tied to public-interest experience and early commitment.

The timing also aligns with a broader trend: the acceleration of the legal hiring calendar. What once unfolded over several months is now compressed into a few weeks—or even days—as firms rush to identify and secure their preferred candidates. As a result, law students are being asked to make career-shaping decisions earlier than ever before.

Implications for Law Students and Firms

For law students, this development signals both opportunity and pressure. On one hand, offers like Davis Polk’s create new pathways to prestigious summer roles and significant financial gain. On the other hand, the increasingly fast-paced nature of Big Law recruiting means students must prepare earlier—researching firms, networking with recruiters, and sharpening resumes well before traditional timelines.

Moreover, firms’ focus on government or nonprofit experience highlights an evolving view of what makes a successful associate. It’s no longer just about top grades or law review membership. Exposure to public service and real-world legal systems is now a valued credential that suggests adaptability, empathy, and broader social understanding.

For law firms, Davis Polk’s initiative could mark the start of a new recruiting trend. Competing firms may soon introduce similar or even larger incentives to attract standout students. As Big Law adapts to generational shifts in work expectations—where younger lawyers prioritize purpose, flexibility, and values—these types of creative offers may become more common.

The Broader Industry Impact

Ultimately, Davis Polk’s $25,000 offer represents more than a generous perk—it’s a signal that the traditional law firm recruitment model is evolving. The old formula of grades-plus-interview is giving way to a more holistic, experience-based evaluation that values initiative and early engagement.

For law students hoping to join elite firms, the message is clear: start planning early, gain meaningful experience, and position yourself as more than just a strong academic performer.

For Big Law firms, the challenge will be balancing this new recruiting urgency with fairness and inclusion—ensuring that early opportunities don’t disadvantage talented students who may need more time to shine.

In an era where talent is the ultimate competitive edge, Davis Polk’s bold offer may set the tone for a new phase in Big Law hiring—one where initiative, diversity of experience, and early engagement define the future of legal recruitment.

Looking to prepare for your next big legal opportunity? Visit LawCrossing.com to explore the latest law firm openings, internships, and recruiting insights tailored for ambitious law students and professionals.

See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile

The post Davis Polk’s $25,000 Incentive Highlights Big Law’s Competitive Race for Top Law Students first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The Michigan Supreme Court has officially adopted the transition to the NextGen Uniform Bar Examination, setting the first administration in the state for July 2028. Michigan thus becomes the 46th U.S. jurisdiction to commit to the NextGen format.

What this means for Michigan

Under the decision, all law-school graduates wishing to take the bar exam in Michigan will be required to sit for the NextGen exam beginning with the July 2028 sitting. This gives law schools, bar-prep providers, and future test-takers almost three years of lead time to align with the new exam format.

Until then, Michigan will continue to offer the current version of the Uniform Bar Examination (UBE). The state’s decision provides certainty for students currently in or entering law school, allowing them to plan for either exam depending on when they sit.

Why Michigan is moving to NextGen

Key features of the NextGen UBE that appeal to Michigan and other jurisdictions include:

• A shorter exam duration: Instead of the current 12 hours, the NextGen version will run approximately 9 hours across two days—reflecting a more streamlined assessment.
• An emphasis on skills and practical tasks such as legal writing, research, counseling, negotiation, and client-management — rather than solely recalling doctrinal law.
• Inclusion of new subject matter: For example, family law becomes part of the scope starting with July 2028.

By adopting the NextGen exam, Michigan is aligning with an evolving expectation of what newly-licensed attorneys should be able to do on day one of practice.

National rollout context

The adoption in Michigan is part of a broader timeline. The NCBE’s rollout plan shows that jurisdictions are phasing in the NextGen exam between July 2026 and July 2028.

In that context:

• Some jurisdictions will begin administering as early as July 2026.
• Michigan’s implementation date of July 2028 places it among the later adopters — giving the state additional time to prepare.
• The portable nature of UBE-style exams means that scores from participating jurisdictions will continue to carry across state lines, though each jurisdiction will still determine its own passing score.

Implications for students, schools, and prep providers

For law students:
If you are planning to sit the bar in Michigan in July 2028 or later, you’ll need to prepare under the NextGen format. That means focusing on integrated scenarios, performance tasks, and practical skills rather than solely memorizing legal doctrine. If you plan to take the exam before July 2028, you’ll still be faced with the current UBE.

For law schools and academic programs:
Curricula, academic support, and bar-prep programs will have to adjust. Courses may need to emphasize client counseling, negotiation, real-world legal tasks, and ethics in a stronger way. The lead time gives schools the chance to revise course offerings, support services, and workshops.

For bar-prep companies and tutors:
Preparation materials, practice exams, and study strategies will need updating. The new format means fewer rote-memorization tasks and more application-based exercises. Providers should begin shifting their content to reflect the change well before July 2028.

Key takeaways

• Michigan’s adoption of the NextGen is a significant milestone — reinforcing that the legal-licensing landscape is evolving.
• The change reflects a broader evolution in legal education and licensure, with greater emphasis on readiness for practice.
• Though the exam is shorter and more practical, preparing for it will still require serious commitment and strategic study.
• For those already in law school or who plan to start soon, it’s critical to monitor how your state (Michigan) implements and supports the transition.

Final thoughts

With the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision, the state is clearly embracing a forward-looking bar exam model. The NextGen UBE promises to bring the test closer to the realities of legal practice — focusing on what lawyers actually do rather than only what they know. For aspiring attorneys, this means adjusting study strategies, and for law schools and prep providers, aligning educational support and curriculum with a new standard of legal readiness.

Plan Your Legal Career with LawCrossing

As the bar exam landscape changes, so will the job market for new attorneys. The best way to stay ahead is to connect with legal opportunities early.

LawCrossing’s extensive database helps law students and graduates find the right opportunities to gain practical experience, enhance their résumés, and prepare for a smooth transition into legal practice under the NextGen era.

Don’t wait until graduation—build your legal career now with LawCrossing.

See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile

The post Michigan Supreme Court Approves the NextGen Bar Exam for July 2028 first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has revised its eligibility rules for one of its most notable diversity-focused initiatives, the Legal Opportunity Scholarship, removing the longstanding requirement that applicants identify as racial or ethnic minorities.

The change comes amid an ongoing lawsuit filed by the American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER), a group led by conservative activist Edward Blum — the same figure behind several high-profile legal challenges to race-based admissions policies, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision ending affirmative action in college admissions.

Shift in Scholarship Criteria

The Legal Opportunity Scholarship, established in 2000, has been one of the ABA’s cornerstone diversity programs. It provides financial support — up to $15,000 per recipient over three years — to incoming law students who are dedicated to promoting diversity within the legal field. Each year, the program awards about 20 to 25 scholarships.

Previously, the scholarship’s eligibility criteria explicitly required that applicants be members of “underrepresented racial and ethnic groups” within the legal profession. But in a significant policy shift, the ABA has replaced that requirement with broader language emphasizing an applicant’s “commitment to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the legal profession.”

According to the organization’s updated materials, applicants are now evaluated based on their experiences, leadership, and potential contributions to diversity rather than their racial or ethnic background.

The Lawsuit Behind the Change

The AAER lawsuit, filed earlier this year in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, claimed that the ABA’s race-based eligibility rule constituted illegal discrimination under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits race-based discrimination in contracts.

The complaint alleged that the program unlawfully excluded otherwise qualified applicants solely because they were white or non-minority. In its court filings, AAER accused the ABA of “using racial classifications to distribute educational benefits,” arguing that such practices are inconsistent with federal civil rights protections and recent Supreme Court precedent.

Blum’s organization has filed similar suits challenging diversity initiatives across a range of industries, from corporate fellowship programs to bar association-sponsored clerkships.

Despite the ABA’s recent policy change, AAER said in a court filing last week that it plans to continue its case, seeking nominal damages and a declaration that the former race-based rule violated federal law. The group noted that the ABA had not publicly announced its revision before it was revealed in litigation filings.

ABA’s Response and Broader Diversity Commitments

An ABA spokesperson confirmed that the rule change had been approved by the ABA Board of Governors before the lawsuit was filed. The board reportedly reaffirmed the association’s “longstanding commitment to diversity in the legal profession” while directing that program eligibility “should not depend on membership in any particular racial or ethnic group.”

The ABA emphasized that the scholarship’s purpose remains unchanged — to increase access to the legal profession for individuals who have faced barriers, financial hardship, or systemic underrepresentation. However, the association’s approach will now focus on measurable contributions to inclusion and community engagement, rather than race-based qualifications.

The change reflects a growing trend in diversity programs across educational and professional settings in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Institutions and organizations have been reassessing policies that explicitly reference race to ensure compliance with new judicial interpretations of anti-discrimination laws.

Not the First Policy Revision

This isn’t the first time the ABA has adjusted its diversity initiatives under legal scrutiny. In October 2024, the organization modified eligibility rules for its Judicial Clerkship Program, which was also the subject of a legal complaint filed by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. That program had previously targeted “minority students” and aimed to expose participants to clerkship opportunities through partnerships with judges and law schools.

The updated clerkship program now welcomes applicants “from all backgrounds who are committed to promoting diversity and inclusion in the legal system,” a change that mirrors the new language adopted in the scholarship guidelines.

Legal and Professional Implications

The ABA’s policy shift highlights the delicate balance professional associations and law schools must maintain as they pursue diversity goals within the boundaries of current civil rights law.

While critics argue that the rollback of explicit race-based eligibility undermines efforts to promote equity and inclusion, proponents of the changes see them as necessary to comply with evolving legal standards and to avoid costly litigation.

Legal analysts suggest that the ABA’s revisions may influence how law firms, law schools, and legal employers structure their diversity programs going forward. Many organizations are transitioning toward “race-neutral” selection models that emphasize socioeconomic disadvantage, leadership in diversity initiatives, or community engagement as qualifying factors.

These developments underscore a larger transformation in the legal profession’s approach to diversity — one increasingly framed around opportunity and commitment rather than demographic identity alone.

The Future of Diversity in Law

As the debate continues, the ABA maintains that fostering a legal profession that reflects the nation’s full diversity remains central to its mission. Yet, how that goal is achieved in a post-affirmative-action landscape will likely remain the subject of legal, political, and cultural debate for years to come.

For law students and aspiring attorneys, the updated scholarship criteria may broaden access to financial aid while encouraging applicants from all backgrounds to demonstrate concrete action toward inclusion and equity in their future careers.

Law students looking to fund their education or explore inclusive legal career paths can find hundreds of current opportunities on LawCrossing.com — the leading legal job site that connects law students and professionals with scholarships, clerkships, and career advancement resources across the United States.

See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile

The post ABA Removes ‘Minority’ Requirement from Law Student Scholarship After Legal Challenge first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Artificial intelligence is transforming nearly every industry—and law schools are no exception. Across the United States, law students are taking matters into their own hands by forming AI-focused clubs designed to bridge the growing gap between traditional legal education and the rapidly evolving world of legal technology.

As the legal field races to adapt to AI-driven tools that promise to reshape research, document drafting, and case analysis, students are realizing that their law school curriculums aren’t keeping pace. The result is a surge of student-led AI societies aiming to prepare future lawyers for an era where technological fluency will be just as essential as legal reasoning.

The New Movement: Law Students Lead the Way

At the University of Miami School of Law, the newly launched Artificial Intelligence and Law Society expected about 50 attendees at its first event. Instead, 75 students crowded the room—forcing the organizers to scramble for more food as law firm partners, professors, and AI company representatives explored how technology is reshaping legal practice.

The overwhelming turnout underscored what many students already sense: the next generation of lawyers must understand AI not just as a tool but as a transformative force. “Students are realizing that AI isn’t just for tech specialists—it’s going to touch everything we do in law,” one student leader said.

Similar stories are unfolding nationwide. At UCLA School of Law, two students with backgrounds in science and technology founded the AI Law Association in 2023 out of frustration that their school wasn’t offering enough courses or workshops focused on artificial intelligence. The group has since expanded to nearly 150 members, hosting panels on topics like AI ethics, prompt engineering, and even the mental health effects of automation on the legal workforce.

At Harvard Law School, a student-run club founded in 2024 explores questions many in the profession are asking: How will AI impact entry-level associate work? Will legal research and writing become partially automated? What happens when AI “hallucinates” false case citations? These discussions reflect a growing recognition that students cannot afford to ignore how AI will alter legal workflows, billing structures, and client expectations.

The Curriculum Gap

While AI-focused student clubs are flourishing, many law schools are still struggling to incorporate AI education into their formal curriculum. A few institutions, such as Vanderbilt Law and Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, have begun integrating short AI modules or seminars into first-year orientations. However, these remain exceptions rather than the rule.

For the most part, law schools are moving cautiously, wary of both the ethical risks and the rapidly changing nature of the technology. Some administrators cite concerns over misinformation generated by large language models, while others worry about data privacy and the lack of established professional standards governing AI use in law.

But to students, the slow pace of institutional change is untenable. “We can’t wait for professors to catch up when the technology is already transforming the firms we want to work for,” said one UCLA Law student involved in the AI Law Association.

What These Clubs Are Doing

The rise of law school AI clubs isn’t just about discussion—it’s about hands-on engagement. These student organizations are taking an active role in shaping how future lawyers understand and use AI:

• Workshops and Demonstrations: Students learn how to use generative AI tools like ChatGPT or Harvey AI for legal research, drafting memos, and summarizing discovery materials.
• Industry Panels: Law firm partners, in-house counsel, and tech entrepreneurs are invited to share how AI is being used in real practice, from contract automation to predictive analytics.
• Ethics Discussions: Clubs explore the boundaries of AI use—how to maintain confidentiality, avoid plagiarism, and ensure accuracy when using generative tools.
• Competitions and Hackathons: Some schools host “AI in Law” pitch competitions where students propose new tech-driven solutions for law practice management.
• Advocacy and Curriculum Development: Student groups are starting to collaborate with faculty and deans to introduce elective courses or provide schoolwide access to professional AI platforms.

These activities not only build practical skills but also foster interdisciplinary collaboration, drawing in computer science and engineering students who help law students understand how AI systems actually work.

Why Students Are Anxious—and Excited

Behind the boom in AI clubs lies a mix of curiosity and anxiety. Many students see AI as both a threat and an opportunity.

AI tools are already capable of performing tasks traditionally handled by junior associates, such as document review or due diligence analysis. This has raised concerns about how entry-level legal work—and even employment prospects—might change. At the same time, those who understand how to use AI responsibly may gain a distinct career advantage.

The Future of Legal Education

The explosive growth of AI clubs sends a clear message to law schools: students are demanding more practical, forward-looking education.

Experts predict that within the next few years, AI literacy will become as fundamental to legal education as courses in contracts or civil procedure. Some universities are beginning to respond by forming partnerships with AI companies or offering certifications in legal technology.

Still, for now, students are taking the lead. Their grassroots efforts may be what ultimately pushes law schools to modernize their curricula and better prepare graduates for an AI-driven legal marketplace.

As the technology continues to evolve, so too will the role of these student pioneers—law students who are not content to be passive observers of change but are actively shaping the legal profession’s future.

Stay informed on how AI is reshaping the legal industry and what it means for law careers. Visit LawCrossing.com to explore legal jobs and insights for the future-ready lawyer.

See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile

The post Law School AI Clubs Multiply as Students Prepare for a Tech-Driven Legal Future first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Law schools across the United States are experiencing an unexpected boom in applications—a surge that’s forcing admissions offices to confront a complex new challenge. In addition to managing the sheer volume of candidates, institutions now find themselves navigating the delicate balance between inclusivity, free expression, and identifying potential “red flags” in a politically polarized era.

Economic instability, social unrest, and a renewed fascination with the power of law and policy have converged to make law school appealing again. But the spike in demand comes with a need for sharper discernment—particularly when applicants’ motivations and online footprints reveal strong ideological leanings or concerning behavior.

A Perfect Storm of Motivation

The reasons behind this surge are multifaceted. On one hand, uncertain job markets are pushing many college graduates toward graduate and professional degrees as a form of economic insulation. On the other, a wave of civic and political engagement—sparked by contentious Supreme Court rulings, high-profile criminal cases, and social justice movements—has reinvigorated interest in the law as a tool for societal change.

The employment picture for law graduates also contributes to the renewed interest. Data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) shows that recent classes have posted some of the strongest hiring outcomes in years. Nearly 91% of 2024 law graduates secured jobs within ten months of graduation, and average starting salaries remain competitive, particularly in BigLaw and government sectors.

However, some educators caution that this uptick in enthusiasm may not always reflect realistic expectations. Law school remains academically demanding and financially burdensome, and not all applicants fully grasp the long-term implications of their decision.

The Political and Ethical Crosscurrents of Admissions

In today’s politically charged climate, law schools face an additional layer of scrutiny: ensuring that they admit students capable of engaging in rigorous, balanced legal reasoning—without bringing extremist or disruptive tendencies into the classroom.

Admissions professionals now regularly encounter applications laced with ideological rhetoric or one-sided political manifestos. While passionate advocacy is nothing new, the current era has blurred the line between political conviction and ideological inflexibility.

Some admissions officers describe encountering essays that read more like activist pamphlets than reflections on a legal calling. Others report that they must now weigh applicants’ digital footprints—social media histories, online activism, and public statements—more carefully than ever.

Spotting the Red Flags

With applications rising, schools have the luxury of being more selective. But that also means carefully evaluating warning signs that might predict future professional or ethical challenges. Common “red flags” cited by admissions experts include:

• Lack of clarity about motivation: Applicants who view law school as a “safe backup” during a weak job market rather than a deliberate professional choice may struggle academically or lose interest before graduation.
• Extreme political or ideological rigidity: Essays or interviews that signal intolerance for opposing viewpoints, or intentions to use law school solely as a platform for activism, can raise concerns about a candidate’s ability to thrive in a diverse academic environment.
• Limited exposure to the legal field: Applicants who have never engaged with legal work, volunteer projects, or policy study often lack realistic expectations of what a legal career entails.
• Unrealistic financial or career assumptions: Some candidates enter law school expecting immediate wealth or prestige, overlooking student debt loads or the challenges of the current hiring market outside top-tier firms.

These red flags don’t automatically disqualify an applicant, but they do invite deeper reflection and conversation during interviews or essay reviews. Many admissions officers emphasize the importance of context—understanding not just what an applicant believes, but how they express those beliefs and whether they demonstrate intellectual curiosity and empathy.

Balancing Opportunity and Responsibility

For law schools, this admissions surge represents both a blessing and a logistical challenge. More applicants mean greater selectivity and the potential for stronger incoming classes. Yet a larger applicant pool also increases the risk of enrolling students who may not be fully prepared for the rigor or ethos of the legal profession.

Institutions must also grapple with capacity limits—faculty bandwidth, classroom space, and the availability of internships and clerkships. Expanding class sizes without scaling resources can dilute the quality of education and strain student support systems.

To manage this, many schools are turning to holistic admissions practices, placing greater weight on essays, interviews, recommendation letters, and indicators of maturity and resilience. The goal, admissions professionals say, is not to weed out dissenting voices but to ensure that future lawyers are capable of reasoned debate, ethical reflection, and long-term professional growth.

Transparency is another key strategy. Law schools are increasingly forthright about costs, workload, and employment realities to prevent mismatched expectations. Some have launched pre-law outreach programs and mentorship initiatives to help prospective students make informed decisions before applying.

A Defining Moment for Legal Education

As political polarization deepens and public trust in institutions fluctuates, law schools stand at a crossroads. They must balance their duty to foster open discourse with their responsibility to produce graduates who embody integrity, analytical rigor, and respect for differing perspectives.

The surge in law school applications is, at its core, a vote of confidence in the power of the legal profession to shape society. But with that power comes responsibility—on both sides of the admissions table. Law schools must ensure that the next generation of lawyers is not only academically capable but also ethically grounded and civically minded.

In short, the new era of law school admissions demands more than just strong grades and test scores. It calls for discernment, balance, and a renewed commitment to the principles that make legal education—and the justice system itself—credible, equitable, and enduring.

Explore your next legal career move today. Browse thousands of direct-from-employer legal job listings, internships, and clerkships on LawCrossing and take the next step in your legal journey.

See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile

The post Law Schools Confront a Surge in Applicants and a New Era of Political and Ethical Screening first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In an era where artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming industries, the legal profession has become one of its most intriguing testing grounds. At the University of North Carolina School of Law, a recent experiment pushed this exploration even further — into the courtroom itself. The school conducted a mock trial where artificial intelligence models, not humans, served as the jury. The goal: to examine whether machines can truly grasp the complexity, nuance, and morality of human justice.

A Legal First: The AI Jury Trial

The experiment, led by UNC law professor Joseph Kennedy, recreated a criminal case involving a teenage defendant accused of participating in an unarmed robbery. The student “defendant” claimed innocence, saying he was merely present and not involved in the crime. The scenario was based on a real-life case Kennedy had once handled, providing a realistic foundation for evaluating the technology’s reasoning abilities.

Instead of human jurors, three of today’s most advanced AI systems were called to deliberate: ChatGPT, Grok (developed by Elon Musk’s xAI), and Claude (created by Anthropic). Each AI model was given the same set of materials — witness testimony, opening and closing statements, and legal instructions — all presented in text form. The AI “jurors” then independently delivered their verdicts.

All three systems found the defendant not guilty.

Professor Kennedy, reflecting on the outcome, said the AI’s decision was not only accurate under the law but also “fairer” than the real-world verdict in the original case, where the human jury had convicted the young man. According to Kennedy, the AIs “got the law exactly right” and demonstrated a surprisingly strong grasp of the evidence presented.

When Algorithms Apply the Law

The exercise revealed one of AI’s greatest strengths in the legal context: its ability to process vast amounts of information consistently, without emotional bias or fatigue. AI jurors do not get tired, distracted, or swayed by sympathy or prejudice — qualities that often complicate human deliberation.

In a controlled academic setting, the AI models displayed precision in legal reasoning. They analyzed evidence based strictly on what was presented, applied legal standards accurately, and reached consistent verdicts. Supporters of the experiment argue that such systems could, in the future, help reduce human bias and error in the justice system.

In civil law contexts — such as arbitration or contract disputes — AI panels could even serve as neutral reviewers, offering faster and potentially more objective resolutions. Professor Kennedy envisions a future where AI-driven decision-making might complement human judgment, not replace it, especially in cases where parties agree to alternative dispute mechanisms.

The Human Factor: What AI Still Can’t Do

However, the trial also exposed fundamental weaknesses that highlight why AI cannot yet (and perhaps should never) replace human jurors.

Unlike people, the AI systems could not perceive tone, emotion, or non-verbal behavior. As Professor Eric Muller of UNC Law pointed out, the AI “didn’t look at the witnesses to see whether they were squirming in their seats, hesitating, or avoiding eye contact.” These subtle cues often influence human perceptions of credibility — a vital component in real-world trials.

Another professor, Eisha Jain, emphasized that the AI’s reasoning lacked emotional weight. “It felt as though the AI jury was debating something casual,” she said, “rather than deciding whether a person deserves to lose his liberty.” This detachment, she suggested, could undermine the moral legitimacy of a verdict, no matter how logically sound it may appear.

Moreover, AI systems are only as unbiased as the data and programming that shape them. Historical data used to train these models often reflects existing social and racial biases within the justice system. Without careful oversight, there’s a risk that AI could replicate — or even amplify — those same injustices under the guise of neutrality.

AI in Law: Promise and Peril

Although no real-world court has yet employed AI jurors, the UNC trial represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing discussion about technology’s role in justice. Legal systems worldwide are already experimenting with AI tools — from predictive policing algorithms and sentencing assistance software to e-discovery systems that sift through millions of documents. Yet, when it comes to fact-finding and moral judgment, the line becomes far blurrier.

Experts agree that before AI could ever be trusted in a judicial role, several critical issues must be addressed: transparency, explainability, accountability, and human oversight. Who is responsible if an AI renders an incorrect or biased decision? How can litigants challenge a machine’s reasoning? These questions strike at the heart of both ethics and due process.

Still, the UNC experiment offers a glimpse of the possible future of courtroom technology. If refined responsibly, AI could support human jurors by clarifying evidence, summarizing testimony, or flagging inconsistencies — not as replacements, but as intelligent aids.

A Lesson for Law Schools and Legal Professionals

For law schools, this experiment provides an invaluable educational experience. Students not only learn the mechanics of trial advocacy but also engage in critical debate over the philosophical and ethical implications of artificial intelligence in law. As Kennedy noted, this kind of hands-on exploration is crucial for preparing the next generation of lawyers to navigate a justice system increasingly intertwined with technology.

For practicing attorneys, policymakers, and legal scholars, the message is clear: while AI holds extraordinary potential to enhance fairness and efficiency, human judgment remains irreplaceable. The rule of law depends not just on rationality, but on empathy, morality, and the lived experiences of those it governs.

The Verdict on AI Juries

The UNC School of Law’s “trial by AI jury” is not just a classroom experiment — it’s a sign of what’s coming. As legal institutions grapple with integrating AI into everything from case analysis to judicial decision-making, the question is no longer whether technology will shape the courtroom, but how.

AI may someday become a trusted partner in justice, but as this trial demonstrated, the soul of the law — fairness, humanity, and moral understanding — still resides firmly in human hands.

Stay ahead of the curve in legal innovation. Discover the latest trends in legal technology, AI, and professional development on LawCrossing.com — your trusted source for career opportunities and insights in the evolving legal world.

See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile

The post Law School’s “AI Jury” Experiment Highlights Technology’s Promise and Pitfalls first appeared on JDJournal Blog.