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.

By Stephanie J. Thompson*

A recent viral trend on TikTok has spotlighted women attorneys who are leveraging microfeminisms to uplift other women and challenge entrenched gender norms within the workplace. The hashtag #microfeminism has garnered over a billion views, underscoring a growing interest in this nuanced form of advocacy. Microfeminism encompasses the subtle, everyday actions individuals—regardless of gender—take to promote gender equity and disrupt traditional expectations, both personally and professionally. In contrast to broader feminist movements that often seek systemic reform, microfeminism focuses on the interpersonal and individual level, recognizing the transformative potential of seemingly small gestures. This Article aims to initiate a critical discussion on the persistent underrepresentation of women’s voices in law school classroom dialogue, despite their numerical majority, and explores how using microfeminisms can be employed to address this disparity.

By Rebekah Hanley*

Large language models (“LLMs”), which are a form of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”), present a tremendous opportunity for legal writing faculty. Thanks to generative AI, the tools and processes for creating professional writing are evolving dramatically, offering educators a chance to rethink longstanding practices. That’s a gift. Generative AI can help breathe new life into tired material. It can prompt playful invention that pays large dividends in both professional development and student learning.

But a big change, like the introduction of powerful new technology, also brings into focus a serious responsibility—a duty to update legal education for the new era. And that duty extends far beyond the legal writing faculty. That duty is shared by the legal writing faculty’s casebook colleagues and law school administrators.

This Article begins to imagine the bold moves that law schools might make to capitalize on the paradigm shift triggered by LLMs. Because LLMs are predicted to reshape legal practice, they deserve a prominent position in the JD curriculum, which aims to prepare today’s students to become tomorrow’s lawyers. But because LLMs capably mimic human analysis and writing, many legal educators quickly categorized them as threats—sources of shortcuts that would necessarily undermine the acquisition of the knowledge, skill, and judgment essential for to professional preparation. LLMs prompted denial, fear, worry, and overwhelm among legal educators. The technology also sparked controversy: some educators pursued a cautious embrace of LLMs, while others insisted that any student use of the technology was tantamount to cheating.

Instead of dragging feet or fighting an inevitable force, law school faculty and leaders should proactively and creatively incorporate LLMs into courses across the law school curriculum—leveraging the technology’s strengths while also modeling the caution, critical analysis, and flexibility that legal work requires. This Article explores how LLMs might be integrated into the JD curriculum along with additional pedagogical shifts indicated by the rise of generative AI.