The Reform of Legal Education through AI

“Only 15% of legal professionals in the Asia-Pacific region believe that legal education should remain as it is.”

Across the Asia-Pacific region, the message is the same: legal education needs a complete overhaul. A major study by LexisNexis and ALITA among nearly 300 legal professionals shows that barely 15% of respondents believe the legal curriculum should remain unchanged. Three-quarters are calling for immediate and fundamental reforms. Not because AI will have an impact someday, but because students, firms, and clients are already noticing it now.

What do legal professionals actually want from legal education?

The researchers asked respondents from countries including Singapore, Australia, India, Hong Kong, and Malaysia for their vision on the future of legal education.

What were the findings?

• 74% want educational institutions to actively integrate AI and LegalTech into the curriculum.
• 85% of in-house counsel believe that educational institutions are currently doing too little in this regard.
• 62% believe that institutions should also provide upskilling for practicing lawyers in the use of AI.
• 50% see a role for educational institutions in developing AI ethics and guidelines.
• Only 15% want to stick to the classical model of lectures and legal dogmatics without technology or practical insight.

What stands out here: in-house counsel, in particular, seem to look further ahead than private practice lawyers. They expect educational institutions not only to shape the legal thinkers of tomorrow but also to contribute to the innovative power of legal teams today.

Differences Between Countries: From Conservative to Progressive

The call for reform is widespread, though not every country thinks the same way about how to shape it:

Singapore

• Mandatory courses on LegalTech, data, and AI in the curriculum of NUS and SMU.
• National program for reskilling and upskilling using generative AI.
• Development of a prompt library for lawyers.

Australia

• Practice-oriented AI Clinics at universities in collaboration with law firms.
• LawTech Hub supports startups and trains students in collaboration with companies.
• Nevertheless, only 30% of students in smaller programs are introduced to LegalTech.

India

• More than 800 LegalTech startups and incubators.
• Top universities are launching AI labs and multidisciplinary programs.
• At the same time, technology remains out of reach for many students due to infrastructure issues and fragmentation.

Hong Kong

• HKU’s LITE Lab is a leader in experimental education with legal AI.
• The Ministry of Justice is developing a national roadmap for LawTech integration.
• Despite this, more than 1 in 3 legal professionals still feel completely unprepared.

Where are the friction points?

Although the call for change is widely supported, there are three structural bottlenecks:

1. Lack of practical knowledge about AI: Lecturers often know the legal field well, but not the daily reality of AI tools in due diligence, e-discovery, or contract analysis.
2. Insufficient collaboration with the industry: Only a few programs, such as Stanford (US) or HKU (Hong Kong), actively involve lawyers, legal engineers, and tech companies in curriculum development.
3. Technology is often seen as optional: Many curricula treat AI as an afterthought, while in practice it is becoming a core competency, especially for junior lawyers.

What can we learn from this in the Netherlands?

Although this research focuses on the Asia-Pacific region, the conclusions are highly relevant for the Netherlands. Here too, legal education is in the midst of an inevitable repositioning due to AI.

The lessons from this study are clear:

• Give technology a central place in education.
• Collaborate structurally with law firms, in-house counsel, and LegalTech companies.
• Turn educational programs into learning and innovation labs, where AI ethics, prompt engineering, and LegalTech solutions are not only taught but also developed.
• Invest in continuing education and professional development.

Conclusion: Without AI in the Curriculum, No Future-Proof Lawyer

The ALITA study shows that traditional legal education is under pressure. Not because lawyers are blindly embracing technology, but because they see that AI is fundamentally changing the legal profession. Those who want to train lawyers ready for this reality must align the curriculum accordingly.

For Dutch educational institutions, this is an urgent task. AI is not a separate subject, but a lens through which the entire legal field is changing. It is high time to organize legal education accordingly, with vision, courage, and collaboration.