When AI Answers Beat Law Professors: What It Means for Lawyers and Law Schools

What does it mean for quality, legal expertise, and judgment when law professors actually prefer AI answers over answers written by other law professors in a blind study?

In this episode of AI Sidebar, Irene Liu talks with Stanford Law Professor Julian Nyarko, faculty director of liftlab and co-director of Stanford Law’s AI Initiative, about his recent study examining how legal experts evaluate AI-generated work. Nyarko explains what the study reveals, why its findings matter for both legal education and practice, and how rigorous research can help the profession determine when AI performs well, when it falls short, and when it should be trusted. He also discusses how liftlab is evaluating AI across legal services, research, and education, including when AI tutors can support student learning and when they may get in the way.

Together, they explore how this research is shaping Stanford Law’s approach to AI in the classroom, from tutoring tools to simulated negotiations, and what it may mean for the future of legal expertise and education.

Learn more about the Stanford Law School AI Initiative

Irene Liu, Executive Director of the Stanford Law School AI Initiative

Julian Nyarko Stanford Profile

Learn more about liftlab

“Law Professors Prefer AI Over Peer Answers”

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Introduction

(00:00:55) What Is liftlab?

(00:02:41) The Four Core Pillars of liftlab

(00:07:39) The Art of Contracts

(00:10:25) How liftlab uses AI

(00:13:54) The Study: “Law Professors Prefer AI Over Peer Answers”