{"id":2969,"date":"2026-03-16T09:55:58","date_gmt":"2026-03-16T13:55:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/march-2026\/?p=2969"},"modified":"2026-04-01T15:16:47","modified_gmt":"2026-04-01T19:16:47","slug":"carolina-law-prioritizes-ai-literacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/spring-2026\/carolina-law-prioritizes-ai-literacy\/","title":{"rendered":"Carolina Law Prioritizes AI Literacy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"classroom<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already reshaped how law is practiced. Major law firms now include AI platform training in their standard associate onboarding, and summer programs routinely feature sessions on prompting techniques and output evaluation. Legal employers have started asking candidates about their AI literacy during interviews, treating it less as a specialized skill and more as baseline professional competency. For law schools, the challenge is no longer whether to acknowledge this shift, but how to prepare students for it. Will they restrict these tools or teach students to use them responsibly? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

UNC School of Law is taking the second path with a coordinated institutional strategy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the past several months, the School has implemented a mandatory AI literacy program for all first-year students and adopted an institutional approach centered on transparency and disclosure rather than prohibition. It’s not piecemeal programming or a single faculty member’s pet project. The program is a coordinated response to a fundamental shift in what it means to prepare practice-ready graduates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interim Dean Andy Hessick<\/a> framed the urgency plainly: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“AI has already changed the practice of law, and it will continue to do so. It is therefore essential to ensure that our students have a high degree of AI literacy.” <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The demand comes directly from the market. Michelle Rodenburg<\/a>, clinical assistant professor of law and law and technology librarian, has watched employer expectations shift rapidly. Summer associates and new graduates increasingly need AI literacy as a baseline skill, not a bonus qualification. Law schools that ignore this reality risk sending graduates into a profession they’re unprepared to navigate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carolina Law’s response treats AI literacy as a core competency, similar to legal writing, research, or negotiation. It is knowledge every graduate needs, not specialized training for students interested in legal technology. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In February, every first-year student participated in an AI literacy program during the Student Festival for Legal Learning. Nicole Downing<\/a>, clinical associate professor of law and assistant director for public services at the Law Library, co-designed the program with Rodenburg. They had an afternoon to give 200 students foundational literacy, not expertise or mastery, but enough understanding that every student could walk into a summer position and engage intelligently with these tools. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The program unfolded in three sessions covering what these tools are, how to use them, their limitations and ethical pitfalls, and advanced prompting techniques. But the underlying lessons went deeper than mechanics. Downing emphasized throughout the training that AI tools don’t actually know anything, they’re sophisticated text generators. That distinction sounds pedantic until you understand how much flows from it. If students think AI “knows” things, they won’t grasp why verification is non-negotiable, why hallucinations occur, or why they need to iterate and edit every output. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The program also addressed a significant source of student anxiety: when is it okay to use AI as a law student? Some students avoid these tools entirely out of concern about academic integrity. Others use them freely, assuming it’s fine. That gap creates exactly the kind of inequity law schools should prevent. Carolina Law’s approach centers on disclosure and communication. Students should check with faculty about appropriate use for specific courses. When they do use AI, they should document it openly. The School isn’t treating AI as something to hide or restrict, but as something students need to learn how to use ethically and effectively. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“AI is not a dirty word,” Downing said. “It is not something we have to hide if we’re using it. These are appropriate uses, and disclosure is the biggest piece.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That transparency-first philosophy extends beyond the Festival programming. Carolina Law has approved three new AI-focused courses for next year, including courses on AI literacy and AI tool design, embedding this training into the curriculum itself. Students will study these technologies with the same rigor they apply to contracts or constitutional law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Robert Birrenkott<\/a>, associate dean for career and professional development, has watched the shift accelerate. “The Career Development Office<\/a> frequently hears from legal employers about the increasing demand for new lawyers to leverage AI,” he said. “Over the past few years, this has moved from ‘speculation’ to ‘expectation.’ We are enhancing law students’ ability to meaningfully contribute to the workforce by integrating AI training during law school.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carolina Law built the infrastructure, from mandatory programming to new curriculum to transparency-centered policies. The goal is simple: students\u00a0shouldn’t\u00a0graduate\u00a0uncertain\u00a0about whether\u00a0they’re\u00a0prepared for a profession that has already adopted these tools. The legal market has\u00a0shifted, and Carolina Law is ensuring its\u00a0students are ready.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Legal employers have started asking job candidates about their AI literacy during interviews. Carolina Law’s answer is a coordinated institutional strategy that treats it the same as legal writing or research: something every graduate needs to know.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":3241,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/spring-2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2969"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/spring-2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/spring-2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/spring-2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/spring-2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2969"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/spring-2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2969\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3390,"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/spring-2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2969\/revisions\/3390"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/spring-2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3241"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/spring-2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/spring-2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/spring-2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}