California couple arrested in connection with surrogacy controversyRonaldo apologizes for Portugal walkout, cites broken promises by coach Jorge JesusOlympian accused of damaging Reflecting Pool requests IG investigation into arrest and case dismissalNew entrants emerge in the space sectorABC seeks court order to halt FCC's early license reviewFormer CIA official linked to alleged $200 million diversion scheme involving gold bars and Florida propertiesNewly released body‑cam footage of arrests in Arizona fuels backlash over police use of forceGold‑coated statue of Donald Trump displayed in StrasbourgWhistleblower Complaint Claims Trump Directed FBI Probe of Los Angeles Anti‑ICE ProtestersAnesthesiologist warns Christa Pike's lawyers execution could be painfulReed Brody Highlights Systemic Issues Following Botched Execution of Christa PikeTuareg rebels withdraw from Kidal amid reported air strikesTensions rise in Israel ahead of October 7Court hears alleged Iranian spies surveilled UK journalists in alleged plan for serious violenceResidents of Yemen's Taiz Express Concern Over Potential Food and Fuel Shortages Amid Ongoing Fighting
Politifex
Search
Back to event
ReasonUnited StatesGovernmentArtificial IntelligenceLegal ScholarshipLaw Professors

How Should A.I. Change Legal Scholarship—and the Job of Being a Law Professor?

By Orin S. Kerr · Oct 6, 2026, 12:53 AM CDT

Read full article at Reason
I enjoyed being on this panel with Nita Farahany of Duke Law School and Daniel Solove of the George Washington University Law School where we debated the proper role of artificial intelligence in the creation and production of legal scholarship—and, more broadly, how A.I. may change the job we have. For those interested, you can watch the panel here: The post How Should A.I. Change Legal Scholarsh

Excerpt shown under fair-use limits. Full text remains with the original publisher.

People in this coverage

Explore their history and attributable record. Being mentioned does not imply endorsement.

Nita Farahany →Daniel Solove →Orin S. Kerr →

Layer 1 · Claims & fact checks

AI analysis

Layer 2 · Biblical perspective

Biblical interpretation
INSUFFICIENT CONTEXT
Read the biblical analysis

Layer 3 · Reporting analysis

AI analysis

Appeal to AuthorityThe author references well‑known scholars to lend credibility to the discussion, though no substantive arguments from them are included.

Call to ActionThe piece encourages readers to view the external panel video, serving more as promotion than reporting.

Self‑PromotionThe author highlights personal involvement, framing the piece as a personal reflection rather than an objective report.

Context

AI analysis

Missing context

The article does not provide any details about the arguments made during the panel, the specific ways AI might change legal scholarship, or any evidence supporting claims about AI's impact on the job of a law professor.

Important context

The author’s participation in a panel with recognized scholars (Nita Farahany and Daniel Solove) suggests the discussion is grounded in expertise, but the text itself offers no substantive content from that discussion.

Opinion vs. reporting

AI analysis

The text is an opinion/announcement piece rather than a news report; it shares the author's personal experience and invites readers to view the panel, without presenting independent reporting or analysis.