Congratulations to Mahvish and her team for announcing ‘pursuit of excellence’ thereby rejecting the idea of ‘excellence without pursuit’ through “Virtuosity Legal” under the mentorship of Professor Khalid Shamim.  

Do we have virtuosity in general? Are we striving for virtuosity in legal education and research? Whether the ecosystem of legal education and research in India ready to adapt and geared to tap the opportunities generated by generative artificial intelligence (AI)? Whether law students, teachers, advocates, and judges getting trained in the effective use of generative AI? Answers to these questions and other related questions seem to be less than certain.

Generative AI is rapidly pushing the frontiers of virtuosity in all directions including that of legal education and research. In 1607 AD, Lord Edward Coke made a profound speech. He politely told James-I, the first king of England and Scotland, that the later was endowed with natural reasoning but was not trained in law and therefore had not acquired artificial reasoning in law and hence cannot perform judicial function and decide cases. At that time, artificial reasoning in law was acquired by long study of law. Practice of law before court required oral and hand written submission.

Artificiality is an essential character of the world we are living in. Word ‘artificial’ entered English dictionary in the fifteenth century and came to be understood at least in two senses. One, in the sense of manmade as against naturally occurring, e.g., wheel, artefact, artificial meat, artificial makeup, artificial enzyme, cDNA etc. Two, in the sense of ‘not real’, e.g., artificial jewellery. A thing, therefore, may be artificial in both the senses or only in one sense. Artificial, nonetheless, is an outcome of human intervention – small or big. AI is a big human intervention. An intervention that is transforming the world into more artificial. AI is not only becoming ubiquitous but is also getting cheaper. In less than two years, AI is cheaper by more than 240%. There were more than 250 AI models by the end of 2024 in the world. US alone owns around 50% AI models. China owns more than 30% AI models. China’s DeepSeek has stirred AI world. What are we seeking?      

Artificial reasoning in law has not met artificial intelligence in law. Typewriter was not invented till 1867. It was made available in US market in 1874. This invention, inter alia, created typewriter divide. A divide in legal practice in the US and elsewhere in the world. Even in US, divide existed between lawyers who owned and knew how to use typewriters and lawyers who didn’t. US has the first mover advantage in typewriter industry. Typewriter is now a thing of past. But imagine a typist typing about hundred pages and presenting the typed material to her boss and the boss directing her to substitute a single word, e.g., sex with gender. The typist would be required to retype all the pages wherever the word sex was typed – the typist will take hours or may be days to complete the task. If the boss gives the same direction to an office assistant in computer age? The office assistant will take only few minutes to complete the task: “Find” and “Replace All”. Though computer is said to be invented in the 19^th century but the age of personal computers (PC) started in 1970s. Since then, the speed and quantity of invention is rapidly increasing. Invention of TCP/IP in 1974, its incorporation in Arpanet in 1983 and its launch in 1991 for general public in 1991 coupled with the invention of www in 1989 fundamentally altered the way act, behave, learn, unlearn, teach, communicate, and live our life. Coincidentally, the year 1991 also marked the beginning of LPG policy in India. When I began flirting with legal studies in 1992 at the Department of Law, Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (AMU) in LL B Program, fundamental revolutionary changes were taking place not only in technological inventions but also in politics, economics, and law. 1990s was the decade that delivered the ideas conceived after WWII and in 1950s and was going to both revolutionary and transformative. 1990s also sowed the seed of disruptive ideas and disruptive technologies.      

In 1992, our ‘Department of Law’ was not having any computer or internet facilities for students. Assignments were written in hand for submission to the teacher. We had to wait for the arrival of All India Reporter and other law reports. Even after the arrival of one copy, we had to wait for one physical copy was both rivalrous and excludable. Had internet been there and had the Supreme Court of India started uploading their judgments on the internet – things would have been different – NO WAITING.

In 1995, my romance with legal studies began with my admission to LL M Program offered by the Department. In LL M, we were required one seminar paper each in the first and second year and one dissertation. Only typed copies of seminar papers and dissertation were required to be submitted – hand written submission was not allowed. Each student of LL M was required to find a typist, seek appointment, sit late night with her, get the print, proof read the print, go back to the typist and repeat all the steps, get the print, submit the print to the supervisor, get the corrected draft back from the supervisor, incorporate the suggestions made by the supervisor, again visit the typist and repeat all the steps, get the final print, search for a binder, get the bound copies of dissertation and submit the same to the Department for evaluation. What if we all had the PCs?

In 1998, my married life with legal studies began when I joined the National Law Institute University, Bhopal (NLIU) as Assistant Professor. Professor Virendra Singh Rekhi the founder Director of NLIU and former Professor, Head, and Dean of Department and Faculty of Law, inter alia, established a computer centre equipped with internet facility at NLIU. He introduced computer as a compulsory subject for BA LL B (Hons) students. Since 1998, I am getting adapted to the use of computer. I feed my thoughts through the keyboard on the computer screen. Writing with pen on paper is a rare practice. It is now a habit. Now it is difficult for me to write with pen on paper. Be that as it may, access to computer equipped with internet is a great time saver.

The progress and development in the field of computer related inventions largely remained evolutionary for around ten years. Came the twenty-first century and it brought along with-it Wikipedia, smartphones, social media and is increasingly extending the computer family. Computers are getting more fertile every day.  Second decade of the twenty-first century build upon the computer related inventions of the first decade in evolutionary-exponential fashion. Third decade of the twenty-first century came with a bang of generative AI – an idea – conceived by Alan Turing in 1950 – whose time has come. In 2023, GPT-4 not only passed Unified Bar Examination (UBE) but also scored more than the average score of human examinees who took UBE.  Generative AI, therefore, has surpassed human intelligence (HI) at least in answering multiple choice questions – the questions focussing on knowledge of information (KoI).

It is now proven that HI is substantially slower in understanding, comprehending, memorizing, recalling or retrieving, describing, analysing, creating, and applying KoI than AI. The question is if a task can be performed in seconds or minutes by AI why should anybody need HI and what for. The only plausible answer seems to be: by focussing of information of knowledge (IoK) rather than merely focussing on KoI. Institutions imparting legal education and conducting legal research should at the least: (i) identify the tasks that can be performed by AI, (ii) diagnose the problems in the result produced by AI – problems like plagiarism, minor/major hallucination, misinformation etc, (iii) design tools and techniques to handle such problems, (iv) train the students and researcher in the effective use of AI – by quipping them with knowledge and skill sets to become master of AI rather than her servant, and (v) identify and focus on knowledge and skill sets that may help HI surpass AI. Time has come for a competition between and collaboration with human student and robostudent, human teacher and roboteacher, human lawyer and robolawyer, human judge and robojudge. MS Word for the time being is recognizing only robolawyer, and is not recognizing robostudent, roboteacher, and robojudge. Very soon these expressions will become part of MS Word dictionary.     

As there was a world divided by typewriter, now there is a world divided by computer, internet, and AI. Legal education with the assistance of AI is and will surpass legal education without it. So is and will be case of legal research and legal profession. There are and there will be students, teachers, lawyers, and judges divided by AI, i.e., those who are trained in the effective use of AI and those who are not trained. 

Announcement of National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) in July 2020 – prior to the launch of generative AI for public – is a North Star in this direction. Fourth paragraph at page 3 of NEP reads as under:

[I]t is becoming increasingly critical that children not only learn, but more importantly learn how to learn (emphasis added) Education thus, must move towards less content, and more towards learning about how to think critically and solve problems, how to be creative and multidisciplinary, and how to innovate, adapt, and absorb new material in novel and changing fields. Pedagogy must evolve to make education more experiential, holistic, integrated, inquiry-driven, discovery-oriented, learner-cantered, discussion-based, flexible, and, of course, enjoyable.

Are we doing legal education and research with the assistance of AI to augment artificial reasoning in law? Should we be asking this question at the first place?

The advent of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the legal landscape, prompting a re-evaluation of the concept of virtuosity in legal education and research. Traditionally, virtuosity in law has been associated with exceptional analytical skills, mastery of complex legal concepts, and the ability to craft persuasive arguments. However, as AI assumes a more prominent role in legal practice, it is essential to reassess what it means to be a virtuosic legal professional.

Generative AI has the potential to significantly alter the way legal education and research are conducted. AI-powered tools can analyse vast amounts of data, identify patterns, and generate insights that may elude human researchers. Moreover, AI can assist in drafting legal documents, predicting case outcomes, and even providing basic legal advice.

While these developments present numerous benefits, they also raise important questions about the role of human legal professionals. As AI assumes more routine and analytical tasks, what skills and competencies will be required of lawyers and legal researchers? How will virtuosity in law be redefined in the age of Generative AI?

In the face of AI-driven automation, virtuosity in law must evolve to emphasize skills that are complementary to, rather than competing with, AI capabilities. This requires a shift from analytical expertise to strategic creativity, empathy, and complex problem-solving. Virtuosic legal professionals in the age of Generative AI will need to possess:

1. Strategic thinking: The ability to leverage AI-generated insights to inform strategic decision-making and drive innovative solutions.
2. Creative problem-solving: The capacity to approach complex legal problems from novel angles, combining human empathy and creativity with AI-driven analysis.
3. Emotional intelligence: The skill to navigate the emotional and social nuances of legal practice, providing empathetic and personalized support to clients.
4. Collaboration and communication: The ability to effectively work with AI systems, as well as human colleagues and clients, to achieve shared goals and outcomes.

The redefinition of virtuosity in law has significant implications for legal education and research. To prepare students for success in the age of Generative AI, law schools must adapt their curricula to emphasize strategic creativity, empathy, and complex problem-solving. Research initiatives should focus on exploring the intersection of AI and law, examining the ethical implications of AI-driven legal practice, and developing new methodologies for evaluating the effectiveness of AI-powered legal tools.

The advent of Generative AI is transforming the legal profession, prompting a re-evaluation of what it means to be a virtuosic legal professional. By emphasizing strategic creativity, empathy, and complex problem-solving, we can redefine virtuosity in law and ensure that human legal professionals remain essential and valued contributors to the legal system.

Some paragraphs in the above passage are generated by Meta AI on the prompt: “Generate a write-up on “Rethinking Virtuosity in Legal Education and Research in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence”. Can you identify HI composed text and distinguish it from AI composed text without the assistance of computer and/or AI? 

CAPTCHA!!

OR

Do we have HI Test to Tell HI Composed Text and AI Composed Text Apart?