Berkeley Law Student Critiques AI Ban, Proposes Disclosure Model
Berkeley Law student Lakshita Bhargava publicly responds to the school's AI use ban.
Why it matters: The student perspective offers insights into the ban's practical impacts and proposes an alternative that could shape AI policy debates across law schools nationwide.
- Berkeley Law's May 2026 policy prohibits AI use in conceptualizing and drafting academic work, including exams.
- The ban covers all 1,120 enrolled students and restricts uploading course materials to AI systems.
- Student Lakshita Bhargava advocates a permitted-but-disclosed AI use model to promote accountability and learning.
- The policy allows instructors to authorize AI use if disclosed in writing and requires student transparency.
In May 2026, UC Berkeley School of Law implemented a sweeping policy banning students from using AI for conceptualizing, outlining, drafting, revising, translating, or editing work submitted for credit. The policy also forbids any AI use during exams and bars students from uploading course materials into generative AI systems.
The new regulation applies across the board to all 1,120 students enrolled at Berkeley Law. It was enacted partly because faculty considered the previous 2023 AI policy "too liberal," especially as generative AI advanced. According to Professor Chris Hoofnagle, a faculty member involved in drafting the policy, the current stringent approach is necessary to maintain educational integrity.
While the policy prohibits broad AI use, it permits students to use AI tools for finding sources like cases or statutes but requires personal verification. Importantly, citations to nonexistent authorities create a rebuttable presumption of prohibited AI use.
However, Lakshita Bhargava, a Master of Laws student focusing on AI Governance, publicly challenged the ban. She argues that a "permitted-but-disclosed" model, where students openly report AI use, fosters better accountability and enhances learning rather than undermining it. Bhargava acknowledges professors' concerns but insists transparency supports educational goals.
The policy includes a flexibility clause allowing instructors to deviate from the default ban by requiring written authorization and student disclosure of AI use. This could pave the way for more nuanced AI integration depending on the course or instructor.
The Berkeley Law AI policy underscores that "thinking remains the sine qua non of good lawyering (and of a quality legal education)," emphasizing the school's commitment to critical skills amidst technological shifts.
By the numbers:
- 1,120 — total Berkeley Law students affected by the AI policy
- 2023 — year of the prior, more permissive AI policy
- May 2026 — month and year the current AI ban was adopted
Yes, but: The ban allows limited AI use for source identification with mandated personal verification, which some see as a compromise preserving academic rigor.
What's next: Instructors can adjust AI policy requirements individually with written permissions, potentially leading to varied approaches within Berkeley Law.