The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has profoundly transformed modern education, and legal study stands at the forefront of this evolution. With the emergence of AI-powered models such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Grok and other legal AI tools, law students have gained access to a range of generative tools that can summarize legal documents, interpret case law, and provide detailed analyses within seconds. These systems are also revolutionizing how legal knowledge is acquired and applied. However, alongside their efficiency and accessibility, they also present new challenges concerning accuracy, ethics, and critical reasoning. The question is no longer whether law students should use AI, but how they can employ it ethically, intelligently, and effectively.
First, What Is Artificial Intelligence?
Artificial intelligence refers to computer systems designed to perform tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as understanding natural language, recognizing patterns, and making decisions. These systems, built on Large Language Models or LLMs, are trained on massive datasets that include judicial opinions, legal commentary, and scholarly writings. They can recognize patterns, and generate coherent and contextual answers in seconds. Yet, despite their sophistication, they remain computational systems that imitate reasoning rather than truly understanding it.
How Can AI Assist Law Students?
Law students spend much of their time reading case law, analyzing statutes and doing legal research and writing. AI-powered tools enhance each of these activities by personalizing learning, optimizing study methods, and creating a more interactive academic environment. They enable students to access vast bodies of legal information quickly, manage their time more efficiently, and adapt learning to individual needs.
One of AI’s most visible contributions is in the field of legal research, which forms the foundation of legal education and practice. Traditionally, research required manually sifting through countless documents to find relevant precedents or provisions. AI fundamentally changes this process by analyzing large databases of legislation, case law, and commentary, and by identifying the most relevant materials through contextual understanding rather than simple keyword matching. The result is research that is faster, more precise, and conceptually focused.
Building upon this research capacity, AI also assists in academic writing and legal drafting, where many students often struggle with structuring coherent arguments. It can propose logical outlines with IRAC/CRAC[1] structures, and refine grammar or phrasing for clarity and accuracy. For instance, a student preparing a memorandum or moot court submission can use AI to develop an initial argument framework before deepening it with doctrinal analysis and citations from textbooks or legal commentaries. This process can encourage critical thinking by requiring students to evaluate AI’s suggestions rather than to accept them passively.
AI’s contribution extends to case analysis, a cornerstone of legal education. Instead of manually summarizing long judgments, students can rely on AI to identify key arguments, legal principles, and reasoning patterns. Simultaneously, students gain insight into their own progress. For example, a moot court participant can use AI to evaluate the logic and persuasiveness of their written or oral arguments and refine them based on feedback.
Moreover, AI supports law students by functioning as a virtual tutor that is available at all times. It can clarify complex doctrines, explain terminology, and provide illustrative examples. For example, a student preparing for an international law examination can ask AI to clarify key concepts such as state sovereignty or treaty succession, and then review key international conventions to reinforce understanding. This interactive method deepens understanding and boosts their inquisitiveness, especially for students hesitant to raise questions in class.
The collective impact of these applications is transformative. AI provides a bridge between theoretical learning and the exercise of professional skills. When used thoughtfully, it empowers law students to conduct more effective research, write with greater precision, and think more critically.
But Does It Cause Harm To Students?
Despite all of its acknowledged benefits, uncritical reliance on AI brings serious risks. One of the most pressing concerns the erosion of independent thought. Because AI provides instant and seemingly accurate answers, students may easily neglect deep reading, genuine understanding, independent analysis, and the discipline of critical thinking. Legal education, however, is not only about obtaining answers but is fundamentally about learning how to think, to find solutions. Overreliance on AI undermines this purpose by diluting the skills of reasoning, questioning, and constructing arguments from first principles. True understanding in law requires active engagement with legal texts and ideas, and it anticipates actively crafting solutions, not the passive acceptance of machine-generated conclusions.
Equally important is the issue of accuracy. AI models, no matter how advanced, are prone to error. Even advanced models can generate statements that sound authoritative but are factually or legally incorrect–a phenomenon known as “AI hallucination”. Research from Stanford University shows that AI legal research tools produce incorrect information between 17% and 34% of the time.[2] Another study by Purdue University found that over half of ChatGPT’s responses to programming questions contained inaccuracies, with nearly three-quarters of them overly verbose or misleading.[3] In law, where precision and citation integrity are essential, such inaccuracies can mislead analysis and distort reasoning for the legal questions.
A further consideration involves academic ethics. AI-generated material cannot be treated as original intellectual work. Using it without acknowledgment amounts to plagiarism and violates academic integrity standards. Ethical use requires transparency: students should disclose when AI has been used for drafting, summarizing, or editing. Citation in the presentation of source material is routine in legal writing and presentation. Honesty in this regard is not only a matter of compliance but also of professional formation. Integrity in learning translates to integrity in legal practice.
Lastly, there is the risk of dehumanizing education by replacing the mentor-mentee relationship with AI-driven interactions. Legal education is not just about acquiring knowledge; it is also about learning ethics, empathy, and the human dimensions of law, which are best imparted through personal engagement with experienced educators and practitioners. They are lifelong skills for lawyers which are first introduced and nurtured in law school.
Can AI-Powered Tools Outperform Traditional Research Methods, Especially Regarding The Reliability Of The Information It Provides?
Still, AI does not necessarily threaten traditional education, it can complement it. Each technological leap in history has expanded human learning rather than diminished it. The printing press democratized knowledge without ending scholarship, and the internet accelerated research without eliminating libraries. AI should continue this evolutionary process.
When compared to traditional research tools such as Google or academic databases, AI offers distinct advantages. While Google relies on keyword searches and presents a myriad of links/websites that demand extensive reading and review, by contrast, AI interprets context and synthesizes information into analytical responses. For example, asking how the principle of “legitimate expectations” applies under international investment arbitration would yield thousands of links on Google but a comprehensive analytical overview from AI.
However, traditional methods remain superior in reliability. Google and library databases provide verifiable primary sources, while AI often generates polished but untraceable content. Because legal research depends on identifiable authority, verification remains indispensable. AI should therefore supplement but not substitute the traditional research. Students must continue to read original sources and engage critically with primary materials, ensuring that AI enhances rather than weakens academic rigor.
So, How Can Law Students Best Use AI In Their Studies?
AI should be used as a study aid, not a replacement for human reasoning. A two-step approach ensures this balance. First, students can use AI to frame questions, draft IRAC/CRAC structures, or outline research directions when addressing legal questions. Second, they must verify every piece of information using authoritative sources such as libraries, academic databases, and official websites.[4] The guiding principle is simple: no citation without verification.
Developing AI literacy has become an essential skill for law students. This means understanding how AI systems work, how to interpret their outputs, and how to recognize their limits. Students should use clear and precise prompts, evaluate the information provided, and check every result for accuracy and reliability. If AI-generated content is included, students must acknowledge its use clearly and indicate how it contributed to their work as they do for all legal research. Using such material without transparent acknowledgement is equivalent to reproducing another author’s intellectual property without attribution, constituting a breach of both academic and professional ethics.
AI can also sharpen critical thinking by serving as a debate partner. Law students may ask it to generate counterarguments or hypothetical cases to test reasoning. But its limitations must be acknowledged, especially in jurisdictions like Vietnam, where AI laws and datasets are still evolving.
AI can also help students understand legal concepts and terminology by simplifying complex topics, but it should not become their only source of knowledge. While AI accelerates learning, overreliance weakens originality and intellectual independence. AI can produce fast and wide-ranging results but it must never replace the habit of consulting original legal materials. Relying on AI for every question leads to superficial understanding, detaches students from authentic sources of law and results may or may not be accurate. To ensure understanding and accuracy, they must verify AI outputs by reviewing textbooks, case law, academic journals, and other credible legal databases. This process of cross-checking allows students to correct errors, understand context, and maintain a habit of critical reading.
As legal education aims to train lawyers to reason independently and to apply knowledge critically while nurturing their ethical awareness, AI can only support, not replace, that process. Therefore, law students should thoughtfully question AI, verify outputs from AI, and transparently acknowledge its use. In an academic context, this demonstrates both integrity and professionalism which are the core values of the legal profession.
In Conclusion,
Mastering AI means controlling the technology rather than being controlled by it. AI can accelerate thinking, but it must never think for the student. When employed thoughtfully, it serves as a bridge between human intellect and digital efficiency. But when used carelessly, it erodes the very skills that define legal excellence: reasoned outcomes, ethical judgment, and independent thought. The integration of AI into legal education marks a defining moment in training future lawyers, as it offers unprecedented opportunities to modernize learning and expand access to knowledge while demanding greater vigilance, ethics, self-discipline and discernment from law students.
[1] IRAC (Issue – Rule – Application – Conclusion) or CRAC (Conclusion – Rule – Application – Conclusion) are widely used methods for organizing analysis to answer legal questions.
[2] Varun Magesh, Faiz Surani, Matthew Dahl, Mirac Suzgun, Christopher D Manning and Daniel E Ho, ‘AI on Trial: Legal Models Hallucinate in 1 out of 6 (or More) Benchmarking Queries’ (Stanford Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, 23 May 2024) <https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ai-trial-legal-models-hallucinate-1-out-6-or-more-benchmarking-queries>.
[3] Samia Kabir, David N Udo-Imeh, Bonan Kou and Tianyi Zhang, ‘Is Stack Overflow Obsolete? An Empirical Study of the Characteristics of ChatGPT Answers to Stack Overflow Questions’ (Purdue University, 2023).
[4] Geena Levine, ‘AI and the Law: Essential Skills Law Students Should Develop’ (Aspen Legal Education Insider, 22 July 2025) <https://aspenpublishing.com/blogs/aspen-legal-education-insider/ai-and-the-law-essential-skills-law-students-should-develop?srsltid=AfmBOop5dNVmwP9hegR6-ethE0aJ7AqcxhCylWP4jWsmbPQoDLQutXQ4>.
Ho Huynh Bao Tran
