I write now with a few “may we?” questions regarding permitted uses of generative AI in your course diverging from [the school’s default AI policy prohibitions]. Importantly, these questions assume the use of GenAI tools that do NOT use input data to train public models . 

For GenAI with such data privacy/security settings, may we:

1.   Upload the course syllabus into the AI tool so that it can create a work/reading schedule for us?

2.   Upload course materials—such as your Course Materials version 1, your Law Governing Lawyers [outline] with [] Rules 2026, PowerPoint slides, practice exams, or our personal class notes incorporating course materials—to help us generate course outlines for personal use, and more generally for the purpose of better understanding course content, e.g., by requesting that the AI tool draft case briefs, summarize or explain dense texts, or generate flash cards, quizzes, or practice questions?

3.   Use AI on personally generated class notes or outlines containing course materials to assist with formatting, organization, and comprehension (including generating case briefs, text summaries, and answering our personal questions about the material)?

4.   Use AI in any other way prohibited by [the school’s] default GenAI policy in the ~four areas the policy identifies:

a.  Exams

b.  Work submitted for credit (using AI for aid in conceptualizing, outlining, drafting, revising, translating, or editing)

c.  Research on papers (essentially the same in this course to (b) work submitted for credit), beyond the limited purpose of identifying sources, such as cases, statutes, or secondary sources

d.  Uploading course materials (for purposes other than those identified in (2) above)—I’m assuming that an important rationale for this prohibition was a concern about IP infringement. But it seems that this concern wouldn’t arise with respect to use of GenAI like Gemini or Harvey that does not use input data to train models?

[The school’s] default AI policy rule also specifically prohibits:

 *Asking an AI tool to brainstorm a paper topic or thesis (prohibited conceptualizing)

*Asking an AI tool to propose an organizational structure for a paper (prohibited outlining)

*Asking an AI tool to compose a paragraph summarizing a legal rule for use in a paper (prohibited drafting)

*Asking an AI tool to identify repetitive passages in a paper that should be cut (prohibited revising)

*Asking an AI tool to polish a paper by correcting grammatical mistakes (prohibited editing)

 *Asking AI to generate an exam outline, elements of which are then used on the exam (prohibited exam use)

 *Asking AI to translate a paper originally written in another language into English (prohibited translating)

      Would you [allow us] to use AI tools in any of these ways?

4.   Use Westlaw and Lexis’s AI tools, and in particular their drafting, summarizing, and research functionalities however we wish (while of course checking for hallucinated citations and factual accuracy)?

5.   Use AI to generate or check Bluebook citation formatting?

6.   Use AI to shorten a paper to meet a page or word limit? (This is one use I have personally found to be really helpful!)

Finally, for any uses of AI that you authorize, could you please let us know how would you like us to disclose our use?

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is….

How should the legal ethics professor answer these questions?

My answer: except for using AI as a research tool, which still would require verifying all results, I would make it simple and rule all other uses of AI bots impermissible.