Scribes—The American Society of Legal Writers celebrated its 75th anniversary on July 31, 2026, with a timely look at one of the most consequential issues facing legal writers today: how to harness artificial intelligence without surrendering the judgment, creativity, and accountability that define excellent lawyering.
Held at UIC Law in Chicago, “The Future of Legal Writing: Balancing AI and Human Judgment” brought together experts from the judiciary, private practice, alternative dispute resolution, and legal education for a wide-ranging conversation about how generative AI is changing legal research, writing, advocacy, and professional training.
Scribes President Michele M. Jochner opened the Diamond Anniversary program by reflecting on Scribes’ history and its 75-year commitment to excellence, clarity, integrity, and purpose in legal writing. She also framed the challenge ahead: technology can be an important addition to a lawyer’s toolbox, but it cannot replace the human work of interpreting precedent, developing persuasive arguments, exercising professional judgment, and maintaining credibility.
Professor Kirsten K. Davis of Stetson University College of Law moderated a panel featuring Professor Patrick Barry of the University of Michigan Law School; Gretchen H. Sperry of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani; Todd C. Toral of Jenner & Block; Kelly Turner of the American Arbitration Association; and the Honorable Rena Van Tine of the Illinois Appellate Court.
The discussion moved well beyond the familiar problem of AI hallucinations. Panelists explored confidentiality and client consent, judicial expectations, ethical billing, AI-assisted arbitration, self-represented litigants, law-school pedagogy, mentoring, and even whether AI-generated prose has a recognizable style.
A consistent theme emerged: AI can assist professional judgment, but it cannot replace it. Toral memorably compared AI to “a very good first-year associate”—potentially useful, but not someone whose work a senior lawyer would simply submit to a court without careful review. Justice Van Tine similarly distinguished between using technology to organize or locate information and asking it to decide which party has the stronger argument.
The implications for the next generation of lawyers received particular attention. Barry urged law schools to develop “skilled skeptics”—lawyers who understand both what AI tools can do and where they fail. He cautioned that AI may reward expertise while amplifying the problems created when users lack the knowledge necessary to recognize a bad answer. Davis and other panelists emphasized that legal education must continue
developing critical thinking, independent analysis, and the ability to challenge apparently authoritative text.
And because this was a Scribes program, the conversation ultimately returned to the writing itself. Panelists questioned whether technically polished AI prose can replicate the concision, voice, empathy, creativity, and judgment found in exceptional human writing. Their discussion reinforced a point central to Scribes’ mission: new tools may change how lawyers work, but they make excellence in legal writing—and the human judgment behind it—more important, not less.
Scribes thanks Schiller DuCanto & Fleck LLP, the American Arbitration Association, UIC Law, New York Law School, and Southwestern Law School for supporting the Diamond Anniversary program.
Watch the full program below and join Scribes as we continue writing the next chapter of our story.