Insight talks with Angela Onwuachi-Willig, PhD, JD, Dean of Boston University School of Law and a 2026 Excellence in Innovation: Law Schools Award winner, about the impact of AI on legal education and the profession.
Artificial intelligence (AI) can now draft contracts, summarize case law, conduct legal research and generate legal arguments in seconds. Yet, according to Boston University (BU) School of Law Dean Angela Onwuachi-Willig, PhD, JD, the rise of AI is making traditional legal education more important, not less.
As law schools across the country rush to integrate AI into their curricula, many are grappling with the same question: What does it mean to prepare future lawyers in a profession increasingly shaped by technology?
For Onwuachi-Willig, the answer begins with a distinction that often gets lost in discussions about technological innovation.
“I don’t think that the meaning of thinking like a lawyer changes,” she says. “What changes is how a lawyer might perform their job, how they might use AI to make them a more efficient and more effective counsel for their clients.”
That philosophy is helping frame Boston University School of Law’s new Certificate in AI for Law Practice, a program designed to give students hands-on experience with AI tools while examining the ethical, legal, and societal questions surrounding their use. The initiative includes new coursework, partnerships with legal technology companies, with AI integration across the curriculum.
But the program’s larger purpose is not simply to teach students how to use emerging technologies, it’s to teach them how to think critically about them.
A common narrative surrounding AI suggests that technology may eventually reduce the need for traditional legal training. Onwuachi-Willig believes that premise is being short-sighted.
“I think a common misconception about AI is that this technology will somehow replace the need for really deep legal thinking, really deep legal and rigorous training,” she says. “The opposite is true.”
While AI can accelerate research and drafting, it cannot independently exercise legal judgment, identify strategic risks, counsel clients, or make ethical decisions. Those responsibilities remain firmly in human hands.
As a result, law schools are increasingly focused on preparing students not only to use AI tools but also to evaluate their limitations.
“We’re teaching our students to be critical consumers and users of AI,” Onwuachi-Willig says.
That emphasis reflects a broader shift occurring throughout legal education. Rather than replacing traditional instruction, AI is being woven into existing foundations. Students must still learn how to analyze cases, construct arguments, write persuasively, and understand legal doctrine.
“You have to know how to do it yourself in order to know how to use it effectively,” she says.
That challenge is particularly important because graduates must still pass the bar exam, which requires them to demonstrate legal reasoning without the assistance of AI.
The Hidden Risk of Automation
While much of the public conversation around AI focuses on efficiency gains, Onwuachi-Willig worries about a less discussed consequence: the future development of legal expertise.
Historically, junior attorneys have built their skills through research, drafting, document review, and mentorship from senior attorneys. As AI automates portions of that work, some law firms may require fewer entry-level lawyers.
That trend could create issues down the road.
“I’m worried our junior attorneys aren’t going to be getting the level of mentoring and skills that they need to become the kind of senior lawyers who can rely so effectively on AI,” she says.
The concern reflects a paradox facing the profession. AI may make today’s lawyers more productive, but if fewer young attorneys receive hands-on training, the profession could eventually face a shortage of experienced practitioners capable of exercising the judgment AI cannot provide.
For law schools, that means preparing graduates not only to work alongside technology but also to develop the human expertise needed to use that technology effectively.
Teaching Students to Question the Technology
Onwuachi-Willig’s perspective is informed in part by her scholarship examining law, inequality and institutional systems. That lens also shapes how she thinks about AI.
Among her concerns is the possibility that AI systems may reinforce existing societal biases.
Because AI systems are created and trained on human-generated information, it can reproduce patterns that already exist within legal, economic, and social institutions.
“I’m worried about bias being reinforced,” she says.
That reality has made critical analysis a central component of BU Law’s AI initiative. Students are encouraged to examine not only what AI produces but also how those outputs are generated and who may be affected by them.
The goal is not technological adoption for its own sake. Rather, it’s to ensure future lawyers understand both the promise and the limitations of these tools.
Expanding Access to Justice
At the same time, Onwuachi-Willig sees significant opportunities for AI to improve access to legal information and services.
Across the United States, legal aid organizations and public defender offices remain critically underfunded. Millions of Americans navigate legal challenges without representation because they cannot afford an attorney.
At BU Law, faculty are exploring how AI-powered tools can help address some of those gaps. For example, faculty are working on housing and eviction cases where technology may help provide legal information and guidance to individuals who otherwise would have little or no access to assistance.
Such tools cannot replace an attorney standing beside a client in court. But they may offer a meaningful improvement over having no legal support at all.
The Future Remains Human-Based
BU’s certificate program reflects a growing recognition that AI competency is, and will become an even more important part of legal practice. The law school has expanded its AI-related offerings, introducing courses that explore both the practical applications of artificial intelligence and the broader legal questions surrounding privacy, regulation, intellectual property, and ethics.
Yet throughout the conversation, Onwuachi-Willig repeatedly returned to the same idea that technology does not change the fundamental purpose of legal education.
Law remains a profession built on trust, centered on relationships, and requiring human judgment.
“We’re a service industry,” she says. “It’s about the relationships you build with people.”
As law schools race to prepare students for an AI-enabled future, Onwuachi-Willig believes the qualities that distinguish great lawyers will remain remarkably familiar, such as judgment, trust, empathy, critical thinking, and ethical decision-making.
“All the things that matter most,” she says, “are things that only human beings can do.”
