08/01/2025
A recent exploration into the potential of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has been undertaken by Andrew Perlman, a law professor and Dean of Suffolk University Law School, highlighting how AI might reshape the domain of legal scholarship. Perlman employed ChatGPT, an AI text-generation tool, to draft an article titled "Generative AI and the Future of Legal Scholarship," aiming to examine AI's impact on legal research methodologies.
The article posits that generative AI could significantly expand the horizons of legal scholarship by introducing novel ways of analyzing and synthesizing legal information. Perlman requested ChatGPT to propose a unique vision for the future of legal scholarship, emphasizing how legal academics could integrate generative AI into their work. The resulting draft, as assessed by Perlman, displayed creativity and linguistic competence comparable to that of a skilled legal scholar, offering insights into AI's capabilities in the academic arena.
The AI-generated draft highlighted that generative AI could facilitate the identification of previously unnoticed patterns in judicial reasoning, legislative trends, or administrative behaviors. AI's ability to process and analyze vast amounts of data rapidly would allow legal scholars to uncover insights and trends more efficiently than traditional methods. The tool could also propose new arguments, counter arguments, and hypothetical scenarios, enabling researchers to engage in more robust and dynamic intellectual exercises.
Moreover, the draft emphasized that AI could assist in integrating diverse analytical approaches, such as empirical legal studies and economic modeling, fostering a more holistic understanding of legal issues. By bridging multiple disciplines, generative AI could enrich legal analyses, providing scholars with a multifaceted perspective on complex legal phenomena.
Despite these advancements, the technology was not portrayed as a replacement for human expertise. ChatGPT concluded that while AI tools could enhance productivity and creativity in legal scholarship, human judgment, ethical oversight, and intellectual leadership would remain indispensable.