Welcome to The Education Edge—the new name and refreshed look of what was formerly the [AALL] Education Update. Designed to keep you learning and moving forward, The Education Edge highlights timely resources, ideas, and opportunities to support your professional growth.
Explore resources of The Education Edge.
Two recent opinion columns published on Justia Verdict – Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia examine the legal, political, and moral implications of the continuing disclosures surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein investigations. Written by Professor Marci A. Hamilton of the University of Pennsylvania and founder of CHILD USA, the essays present a forceful argument that accountability for systemic abuse requires sustained legal pressure and public transparency. The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent the official position of Justia.
In The Three Avenues to Justice in the Epstein Cases, Professor Hamilton argues that meaningful accountability is likely to emerge through three principal legal pathways rather than through federal prosecutorial initiative alone.
A recent practitioner commentary offers a confident assessment of the current state of large language models (LLMs) in legal practice, arguing that the primary barriers to adoption are no longer questions of intelligence or reliability but rather issues of infrastructure and workflow integration. Writing from the perspective of a lawyer who uses advanced models daily, the author contends that modern systems have already reached a level of practical competence sufficient for much of routine legal work, and that the profession’s hesitation reflects outdated assumptions about hallucinations and model limitations.
Central to the argument is the claim that hallucinations, once the dominant concern surrounding generative AI, have largely receded as a meaningful obstacle. According to the author’s experience, newer models rarely produce fabricated information, and overall error rates compare favorably with those of competent junior associates. This view reflects a broader shift in perception: rather than treating LLMs as experimental tools requiring constant skepticism, the author frames them as increasingly dependable collaborators capable of supporting substantive legal tasks.
The post also challenges prevailing narratives about the intellectual difficulty of legal work. While acknowledging that certain cases demand deep expertise, the author suggests that the majority of legal tasks rely on skills such as careful reasoning, synthesis of precedent, structured writing, and research , areas where modern LLMs already excel. By reframing legal practice as process-driven rather than exclusively intellectually rarefied, the commentary positions AI as well aligned with the day-to-day realities of the profession.
Professor Peter Lee’s VERDICT essay argues that synthetic data may revolutionize AI development by providing scalable, legally safer training material. Yet he warns that artificial datasets introduce new risks such as model collapse, bias, and misuse that demand proactive legal oversight. Rather than replacing existing regulatory debates, synthetic data transforms them, requiring courts, policymakers, and information professionals to rethink how innovation, privacy, and intellectual property intersect in the AI era
FROM THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES:
The legal information landscape is shifting faster than ever—AI, staffing changes, and innovative services are reshaping the profession. The 2025 AALL State of the Profession Report delivers the data, trends, and real-world insights you need to stay ahead. Use this essential resource to guide planning, showcase impact, and anticipate what’s next. Available in digital, print, or bundle formats… The AALL State of the Profession report offers a comprehensive view of the law library and legal information landscape, highlighting the contributions, challenges, and aspirations of legal information professionals. Designed as a tool for benchmarking, advocacy, strategic planning, and personal growth, it serves as a valuable resource for navigating and advancing the field. The 2025 State of the Profession was published on June 24,2025.
SciTech Magazine is published by the Science and Technology Section of the American Bar Association.
INTRODUCTION:
The Winter 2026 issue of The SciTech Lawyer, published by the American Bar Association’s Science & Technology Law Section, arrives at a pivotal moment in the legal profession’s evolving relationship with artificial intelligence. Centered on the theme of responsible AI use, this issue explores how rapidly advancing technologies are reshaping legal practice while raising urgent ethical, regulatory, and professional responsibility concerns.
In recent years, advances in neuroscience have sparked interest in whether brain stimulation technologies might contribute to crime prevention. Techniques such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) have been studied for their effects on impulse control, aggression, and moral decision-making traits often associated with criminal behavior. While this research is scientifically intriguing, its relevance to criminal justice policy remains limited and contested.
Much of the interest in brain stimulation stems from findings linking antisocial or impulsive behavior to dysfunction in the prefrontal cortex, the region of the brain responsible for executive control, emotional regulation, and judgment. Laboratory studies suggest that stimulating this area can temporarily enhance self control or reduce aggressive responses in controlled settings. These findings have led some commentators to speculate whether neurological interventions could someday complement traditional crime-prevention strategies.
For more than a century, the American Bar Association has played a central role in shaping legal education in the United States through its authority to accredit law schools. ABA accreditation is widely regarded as the gold standard: graduates of ABA accredited schools are eligible to sit for the bar examination in all U.S. jurisdictions, and accreditation is often viewed as a proxy for institutional legitimacy and educational quality.
Yet in recent years, critics have questioned whether a single private professional organization should retain exclusive control over accreditation in a diverse, evolving legal education landscape. The debate raises fundamental questions about educational quality, access to the profession, innovation, and regulatory accountability.
Introduction.
This posting draws on guidance and analysis from AALL, IFLA, ACRL, the ABA, Thomson Reuters, LexisNexis, NIST, Stanford HAI, and the World Economic Forum, among others. Artificial intelligence is no longer a speculative “future issue” for law and justice information professionals. By 2026, AI will be embedded, sometimes invisibly, into many legal research platforms, court systems, compliance workflows, and knowledge-management environments. The central question is no longer whether AI will affect our work, but how it reshapes professional responsibility, judgment, and value.
Criminal Law Library Blog