Scholars Grapple With Ethical Use of AI in Legal Scholarship

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) to assist in legal scholarship is raising new questions about how researchers should attribute and credit their work. In a recent post, a legal scholar opened up about their dilemma over whether—and how—to incorporate AI-generated content into their academic output. The scenario unfolds as the capabilities of AI continue to evolve rapidly, prompting scholars to rethink traditional approaches to research and authorship.

The scholar’s inquiry stems from a project revisiting a 2021 law review article they wrote on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, specifically its application to unlocking cell phones. The article was based on a transcript of the 1807 treason trial of Aaron Burr, relying heavily on a detailed reconstruction of arguments made by lawyers using a shorthand transcript created by lawyer John Robertson.

However, the scholar recently discovered another transcript of the same trial, this time authored by lawyer Samuel Carpenter. Both men claimed to have produced verbatim records of the proceedings, but their accounts differed in key details. This discrepancy has cast doubt on the accuracy of the original article, which was based solely on the Robertson transcript. To address this, the scholar considered comparing the two transcripts—a time-consuming task—to ensure the reliability of their work.

Enter AI: The scholar wondered if AI could be trained to analyze and compare the two lengthy transcripts efficiently. They hypothesized that AI’s ability to process large volumes of text, summarize, and identify disparities could save significant time. After experimenting with an AI service, they are now grappling with how to handle the output generated by the tool.

The scholar’s dilemma highlights a growing challenge in academia: How should researchers acknowledge and integrate AI-generated content into their work? As AI becomes more sophisticated, its role in scholarly research is expanding, but questions about attribution, originality, and intellectual property remain unresolved. The scholar’s experience underscores the need for clearer guidelines on the ethical use of AI in legal scholarship—and raises broader implications for how academia will adapt to this technological shift.