“I like good strong words that mean something.” Little Women[1]

  “2Ls tell me this class will end up pretty heavy, but I feel good so far. So, when is the other shoe going to drop?”

My jaw dropped.  She nailed it.  She explained to our class not just where—but how—this 1L’s memo could be more synthesized, more precise, and more logical.  I could not have done it better. 

But remarkably, she was herself only a 1L.  In fact, she was the 1L who authored the memorandum only a week earlier.  And even more remarkably, several of her colleagues did the same thing with their own work in that same session, only a few weeks into the semester.

Each year growing up, my family did the same thing for Thanksgiving. We’d invite a group of families over to our house, everyone would bring the same set of dishes (candied sweet potatoes!), we’d have a Kids Table and a Grown-Ups Table (Kids Table was always more fun), and then, after dinner, we’d play games. 

This article offers a potential tool for legal writing professors seeking to quickly orient students to the positive power—and potential peril—of using generative artificial intelligence tools wisely in the practice of law. This article describes a verified, helpful classroom exercise designed to engage students in the critical evaluation of memos or briefs generated by various AI systems. Through this exercise, students quickly grasp pitfalls of the tools, while they also start to understand that different AI products suit different purposes.

Why are students reluctant to attend faculty office hours? For years, this issue has confounded me. Students’ meeting with faculty outside of class has been shown to increase their comprehension and retention of material, satisfaction, engagement, and sense of belonging.[1] That is why I tell my students that I am almost always in my office, my door is always open, and they may drop by with any questions they have—no appointment needed.