Generative AI Tools for USD Law Faculty

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TOOL USAGE IN WRITTEN WORK (Section XVIII of the 2024-25 Academic Rules, p. 41 excerpted below)

For the full PDF click here

Introduction: This rule balances the fact that writing is an indispensable skill for lawyers with the fact that the use of AI tools is likely to become an integral part of practice.

1. For the purposes of this rule, artificial intelligence tools (“AI tools”) refer to large-language model (LLM) AI tools and do not include plagiarism checkers, grammar-check, spell-check, indexing, Bluebooking, or other citation or formatting tools such as those commonly used to generate tables of contents or bibliographies.
2. AI-Generated Content (“AGC”) refers to substantive content generated by an AI tool or revisions generated by an AI tool that materially alter a student’s own writing. AI may be used for research purposes, such as to generate suggestions of sources or topics; however, any material copied from or substantially derived from a query to an AI tool shall constitute AGC. Students remain responsible for the accuracy of any information generated by a query to an AI tool.
3. No AGC may be included in written work submitted for credit in either the JD or any of the Masters of Laws programs, unless the instructor explicitly permits such use in writing. If there is a course syllabus, the permission must be granted in the syllabus. If there is no syllabus, such as in the supervision of journal comments, the permission must be granted in a written communication.
4. In any submission of written work for credit, students must disclose the use of AI tools or any AGC included in their submissions. The failure to disclose the use of AI tools or AGC, as well as any other representation of AGC as student-drafted content, will be treated as plagiarism, as defined in Section I.1.d of the Law School’s Honor Code.
5. Nothing in this policy alters any other rule pertaining to plagiarism, as defined in Section I.1.d of the Law School’s Honor Code.

• Prohibited Use: Students are not allowed to use generative AI tools (e.g ChatGPT or Lexis+AI) on assignments in this course or on the final exam.
• Mandatory Disclosure: Students are allowed to use generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT or Lexis+AI) on assignments in this course but must be transparent about their use and disclose any generated content. 
• Permissible vs. Non-permissible uses:
  • You are free to use recommendations when it comes to rephrasing sentences or rearranging paragraphs or outlines you have drafted yourself
  • You may not use entire sentences or paragraphs suggested without quotation marks and a citation.
  • You may not have an app write a draft (either rough or final) of an assignment for you.
• Encouraging Use: Understanding how and when to use generative AI tools is quickly emerging as an important skill for lawyers. You are welcome to use generative AI tools as long as the use aligns with the learning outcomes for this class and does not violate the Honor Code. Your use of generative AI tools must be properly documented and cited for any work submitted in this course.
• Prior Consultation: Students are allowed to use generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT or Lexis+AI) on assignments. Students must discuss their use with the faculty member before submitting their assignment. 

• UC Berkeley, Center for Teaching & Learning, Understanding AI Writing Tools and Their Uses for Teaching and Learning at UC Berkeley.
• Santa Clara University, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Guidelines for the Ethical Use of Generative AI (i.e. ChatGPT) on Campus.
• Fordham University School of Law, School of Law Memorandum on Academic Integrity
• Georgia State University College of Law, Georgia State Law Honor Code
• Mitchell Hamline School of Law, Student Conduct
• Harvard Law School, Harvard Law School Statement on Use of AI Large Language Models (like ChatGPT, Google Bard, and CastText’s CoCounsel) in Academic Work, including Exams
• University of California, Irvine School of Law, Academic Honor Code
• University of Washington School of Law, Law School Honor Code
• Washburn University School of Law, Honor Code and Procedures for Law Students

Do AI detectors work?

In short, no. A June 2023 study of a dozen AI detectors found that they were "neither accurate nor reliable.” Similar studies from the University of Maryland and University of Adelaide documented the pitfalls inherent in accurately detecting AI generated text and ease of fooling AI detectors into believing text was human generated. 

AI detectors are problematic and not recommended as a sole indicator of academic misconduct.  Given the widespread concerns about the accuracy of AI detection tools, instructors and institutions must balance preventing plagiarism with minimizing false accusations.  AI detectors should be used with caution and discernment, or not at all. 

For more about AI detection, visit our AI Detection Tools Guide.