A Student’s Response to Berkeley Law’s AI Ban

2026-06-15 · Source: Artificial Lawyer · Field: Legal & Regulatory — Legal Technology (LegalTech), Regulatory Affairs & Government Relations · Depth: Fundamental Awareness, short

Summary

Lakshita Bhargava, a Master of Laws student specializing in AI Governance at Berkeley Law School, has responded to the institution's controversial AI ban implemented last month. Berkeley Law prohibited large swathes of AI use, including for summer exams, aiming to prevent student over-reliance on LLMs and protect intellectual development. Bhargava, previously with Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co, argues that an ideal AI policy should focus on two urgent goals: helping students use AI productively and protecting legal education's integrity. She proposes a three-part framework: treating AI as an intern for low-risk tasks like summarizing and outlining, requiring meaningful disclosure of all AI use to uncover "power users" and inform future policy, and setting concrete safeguards such as no confidential information, mandatory citation verification, and full student accountability for final work. This approach, she suggests, makes AI a learning tool rather than an educational adversary.

Key takeaway

For legal educators considering AI policies, outright bans risk driving AI use underground and hindering learning. Instead, you should implement a transparent framework that integrates AI as a learning aid. Require students to disclose AI use for tasks like summarization and outlining, while mandating verification of all AI-generated content. This approach fosters accountability and helps you understand actual student AI engagement, informing better future policy development.

Key insights

Transparent, guided AI integration in legal education fosters learning and accountability more effectively than outright bans.

Principles

• AI use should be disclosed for accountability.
• Students must verify AI-generated content.
• AI is a tool for low-risk learning support.

Method

An ideal AI policy for law schools should help students use AI productively and protect legal education integrity by establishing a use-based framework, requiring meaningful disclosure, and setting concrete safeguards.

In practice

• Use AI for summarising, outlining, editing.
• Implement mandatory AI use disclosure.
• Verify all AI-generated citations.

Topics

• AI Governance
• Legal Education
• LLM Policy
• Student Accountability
• AI Ethics
• Berkeley Law

Best for: AI Student, Legal Professional, Policy Maker

Related on AIssential

• OpenAI Announcement, Law School Crushes AI Use, Legal Innovators + — AI model makers are expanding beyond core models, while legal education grapples with AI's impact on cognitive development.
• After trial judge cites AI-generated judgment, Supreme Court asks BCI to set up expert panel to examine issue - Bar and Bench — AI-generated legal "hallucinations" necessitate judicial accountability and sovereign AI development in India.
• The greatest risk of AI in higher education isn’t cheating – it’s the erosion of learning itself — AI's pervasive integration in higher education risks eroding fundamental learning processes and mentorship structures.
• AI Is Changing Teens’ Lives. Why Are They Being Left Out of the Debate? — AI policy for youth must integrate young people's perspectives to be effective and address both visible and subtle risks.
• Honing legal judgment: The AI era requires changes to how lawyers are trained during and after law school — AI's impact on legal training necessitates a coordinated, profession-wide overhaul to preserve and develop legal judgment.
• The surprising case for AI judges — AI can enhance dispute resolution by increasing efficiency, reducing costs, and improving perceived fairness through transparent, agent-based systems.

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Artificial Lawyer.