The University of Chicago Law School is banning phones, tablets, and laptops in core first-year classes beginning this fall [1, 2, 3].

The move reflects a growing tension between the efficiency of generative artificial intelligence and the foundational cognitive development of future lawyers. By removing digital distractions, the institution aims to ensure students develop the critical thinking and analytical abilities that AI cannot replicate.

Adam Chilton, Dean and Professor of the University of Chicago Law School, said the policy is designed to promote "essential human" skills [1, 3]. The ban targets the first-year curriculum specifically, where students are introduced to the core tenets of legal reasoning and case analysis.

Law school administrators said AI tools may stunt intellectual growth by automating the very processes students need to master [1, 3]. In modern legal practice, AI is increasingly used to handle research and document review, tasks that were once the primary training ground for junior associates.

The school seeks to protect the pedagogical process from the shortcuts provided by large language models. By returning to pen-and-paper note-taking, the faculty intends to force a deeper engagement with the material and a more focused classroom environment [1, 2, 3].

This shift comes as legal educators worldwide grapple with how to integrate AI without sacrificing the rigor of traditional legal education. The university said that mastering the fundamentals manually is a prerequisite for effectively overseeing AI tools in professional practice [1, 3].

“The law school is banning phones, tablets, and laptops in core first‑year classes to limit AI use.”

This policy signals a pivot toward 'analog' learning as a defensive strategy against AI-driven cognitive atrophy. By restricting technology during the most formative year of legal study, the University of Chicago is asserting that the ability to synthesize complex information without digital assistance remains a competitive advantage and a professional necessity in the legal field.