By Frances C. DeLaurentis* & Jessica Lynn Wherry**
In her Article, A New Parlor is Open: Legal Writing Faculty Must Develop Scholarship on Generative AI and Legal Writing, Dr. Kirsten Davis questions the assumption that a human is the agent of writing. Fundamental to Dr. Davis’s position is the question, does generative AI write or does it merely produce? Although such question may be warranted, it is premature and harmful to crown generative AI a “writer.” In this Article, we explore the unique aspects of legal writing and legal document production, discuss the benefits of generative AI-produced text, explore the risks to novice legal writers of treating generative AI-produced text as writing, and advocate for continuing to teach foundational legal writing skills and incorporating generative AI into that skillset. We conclude by reinforcing the uniquely human aspects of writing and suggest that generative AI should become part of the legal writing process, rather than its replacement. Generative AI should continue to be viewed as a powerful tool to be incorporated into the writing process, but should not be the sole entity at the center of legal writing. The human writer may share that center with generative AI especially if the writer has learned how to use generative AI to enhance their own writing and to evaluate text produced by generative AI. Novice legal writers need to be exposed to generative AI so that they can develop an understanding of how best to use it in their writing process and learn how to share that “center” with generative AI.