Artificial Intelligence Is Reshaping Law Firms' Hiring Criteria for Law Graduates 

— Reflections after the Harvard ODR Forum and Related Events

Editor's Note: This is Part II of the two-part article Artificial Intelligence Is Reshaping Law Firms' Hiring Criteria for Law Graduates—Reflections after the Harvard ODR Forum and Related Events. The first part introduced the 2026 Harvard International ODR Forum and Arbitration and Mediation in the Age of AI at Suffolk University Law School. Drawing on the author’s presentation, remarks by participants, and firsthand observations, the article also examined AI legal education practices at several U.S. law schools and explored how AI and ODR are reshaping the competencies law graduates need, and how these changes may influence law firms’ hiring criteria.

Click here to view the original text of Part I

From June 10 to 13, Professor Michael Fang participated in a series of activities in Cambridge and Boston, including visits to Harvard and MIT, a dinner honoring NCTDR founder Ethan Katsh, the Harvard ODR Forum, the Suffolk conference, and the VibeODR Hackathon. This second part continues the author’s reflections after these events, focusing on the dinner honoring Katsh, the VibeODR Hackathon, the exchange at Suffolk with one of the principal organizers of the forthcoming 2027 ODR Forum in Tokyo, a later visit to BU Law, and interviews and recollections involving Northwestern. Through these experiences and reflections, it explores how AI is changing legal education and the competencies law firms seek in law graduates.

III. The VibeODR Hackathon: Learning by Doing and New Hiring Criteria

Figure 4. Michael Fang, Gregory J. Watford, and Marc St. Pierre formed the “Guardrails for Mighty Minors” team and participated in the VibeODR Hackathon.

On June 13, Fang participated in the VibeODR Hackathon. An ODR hackathon is a time-limited collaborative event in which participants use technology to develop and present solutions or prototypes for dispute resolution. This event centered on building practical dispute resolution tools with code. Participants could use AI programming tools such as Claude Code to create negotiation assistants, mediation platforms, and arbitration systems. Prior legal or programming experience wasn‘t required; curiosity and a willingness to collaborate were enough.

The event was supported by ODR.com, the International Council for Online Dispute Resolution, PON, the AAA-ICDR Institute, and Suffolk Law School. Its interdisciplinary structure showed how legal education can move beyond classroom instruction toward training centered on real problems, technological tools, and collaboration.

Michael Fang formed the GMM team with Gregory J. Watford and Marc St. Pierre. GMM represents both the members’ initials and “Guardrails for Mighty Minors,” a project designed to develop protective rules and dispute-resolution mechanisms for minors interacting with AI. “Mighty Minors” emphasized minors’ capacity for expression, creativity, and growth, while recognizing their need for protection.

Watford brought experience in law enforcement, investigation, and litigation; St. Pierre, a Brandeis University graduate student, contributed expertise in computational linguistics, machine learning, and natural language processing; Fang focused on ODR mechanism design. Together, they explored how to address risks involving minors and AI through online prevention, response, and dispute resolution. During the hackathon, the team’s intense focus and active discussions drew the attention of Janetta Miranda and other AAA staff members, who interviewed the team several times. Colin Rule also noted the novelty of the project, describing it as a “first” in its field.

The hackathon reflected the educational ideas of “less teaching, more learning” and “learning by doing.” Participants did not merely listen to lectures or simulate practice; they identified a real problem, divided tasks, used AI tools, and translated legal principles into an operational process. Because minors’ AI interactions involve law, psychology, education, platform governance, data protection, family responsibility, and technology design, the project also demonstrated the necessity of interdisciplinary knowledge.

For law firms, the value of such experience is not simply that a graduate has attended a hackathon. It is evidence of whether the candidate can define problems, translate rules into processes, collaborate across disciplines, control AI-related risks, understand users, and deliver a compliant and workable result. AI is therefore shifting hiring criteria beyond traditional research and writing toward broader professional judgment, technological understanding, teamwork, and project execution.

IV. A Tribute to Ethan Katsh: Vision and Pioneering Spirit for AI-Era Legal Talent

Figure 5. At the Harvard Faculty Club, NCTDR Fellows watched the LMI Network documentary Can ODR Change the World? The Story and Promise of Online Dispute Resolution and reflected on Ethan Katsh’s pioneering contributions.

Before the forum, on June 10, Fang participated in visits at Harvard and MIT and attended a dinner honoring Professor Ethan Katsh, founder of NCTDR, arranged with the assistance of Colin Rule. International ODR scholars, including Karim Benyekhlef, Director of the Université de Montréal’s Cyberjustice Laboratory, and Richard Susskind, Commonwealth Envoy for Justice and Artificial Intelligence, also sent video messages. Katsh, a Yale Law School graduate, did not confine his career to traditional legal practice. He recognized early that the internet would transform dispute resolution and helped establish ODR as a field.

His career shows that legal professionals in the AI era need more than the professional fundamentals of handling cases and drafting legal documents. They also need technological awareness, imagination in institutional design, a global perspective, and the courage to explore new forms of legal service. For Chinese law schools, this also means that legal education should not be confined to traditional career paths, but should actively engage in global digital governance, cross-border dispute resolution, and AI-related rule-of-law practice.

V. Boston University: AI Skills and the Human Element in LL.M. Education

Figure 6. During his visit to BU Law, Fang met and exchanged views with Michelle L’Etoile, Director of Graduate Admissions, and Professor Maureen Tracy Leo, Director of International Graduate Programs.

After the conference, Fang visited Boston University School of Law. Professor Maureen Tracy Leo showed him classrooms and the moot court, while Michelle L’Etoile introduced BU Law’s LL.M. programs in Banking and Financial Law, Taxation, Intellectual Property and Information Law, American Law, and the Two-Year LL.M. program.

Momina Hameed, a 2026 graduate of the LL.M. in American Law program and a Student Ambassador, discussed the curriculum, international environment, and student support system. She noted that students may select courses in business, intellectual property, tax, litigation and dispute resolution, international law, and emerging technologies. She also emphasized BU Law’s diverse international community, experienced faculty, and access to Boston’s legal and academic networks.

Her reception illustrated an important point: although AI skills are increasingly important, legal talent cannot be reduced to technical competence. Legal services still concern real people and relationships. Communication, cross-cultural understanding, empathy, professional commitment, and a sense of service remain important to law firms and legal institutions.

BU Law is also developing AI-focused education through its “AI at BU Law” initiative, supported by Boston University’s AI Development Accelerator. Beginning in fall 2026, the “AI in Legal Practice Certificate” will include courses such as AI Prompt Lab for Lawyers, AI and Compliance, AI and Litigation, AI and Health Law Practice, AI Legal Conceptualization, Reasoning, and Analysis, AI and Intellectual Property, Law and Algorithms, Cyberlaw, Information Privacy Law, and Digital Freedom and Civil Rights. This combination of practical tools, legal analysis, and policy reflects the need to train lawyers who can use AI responsibly without losing professional judgment or human concern.

VI. A Post-Forum Reflection on Northwestern Law: Long-Term AI Training and Changing Law Firm Hiring Standards

Figure 7. The 2020 Northwestern virtual panel, at which Fang joined international speakers to discuss technology, courts, and ODR, illustrates the law school’s engagement with legal innovation before the rise of generative AI.

The 2026 Harvard ODR Forum and related events prompted Fang to reconsider his earlier experience at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. Although Northwestern was not part of those events, its development illustrates a broader point: U.S. law schools’ engagement with AI, ODR, and computational law did not begin with ChatGPT, but was built through years of teaching, research, and institutional experimentation.

In March 2020, Fang presented “Technology and the Future of Courts: A Global Perspective” at an online conference hosted by Northwestern. Other speakers included Shannon Salter, then Chair of British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal, widely described as the world’s first online public tribunal. More than 280 participants attended, showing that technology, courts, and ODR had already attracted considerable academic and professional interest before the rise of generative AI.

That year, Fang also audited CS 497: The Science of Law and Computation, co-taught by Jason Hartline and Daniel W. Linna Jr. The course connected legal rules and reasoning with protocols, algorithms, and programs. Northwestern has since expanded its curriculum in AI regulation, computational law, legal-service automation, privacy, generative AI liability, and corporate AI compliance. Its Innovation Lab also brings law and computer science students together to work on projects for law firms, courts, companies, and legal technology organizations.

Changshu Shen, an incoming Fall 2026 LL.M. student, examined Northwestern’s AI and legal technology training before enrolling. Her experience suggests that students increasingly evaluate law schools by whether they provide skills valued by legal employers.

Northwestern is only one example among the law schools discussed above. As AI-related programs become more common, employers and ranking organizations will need to look beyond labels and promotional visibility to assess the depth, continuity, and practical value of legal education.

VII. From Harvard to Tokyo: Where West Meets East and Code Meets Law for AI-Era Legal Practice

Figure 8. During the Suffolk conference, Fang exchanged views with Professor Mayu Watanabe of the Institute of Science Tokyo and wished the 2027 ODR Forum in Tokyo a successful event.

The 2027 ODR Forum will be held in Tokyo, with Professor Mayu Watanabe serving as one of its principal organizers. Watanabe is a founding member of the Japan Association for Online Dispute Resolution and works at the Institute of Science Tokyo. Although Tokyo has been confirmed as the forum location, the specific venue has not yet been announced.

Unlike the law schools discussed earlier, the Institute of Science Tokyo is a science- and engineering-oriented university rather than a traditional law school. Its participation in ODR does not move dispute resolution away from law; instead, it illustrates that AI-related disputes increasingly require collaboration among legal scholars, engineers, platform designers, data scientists, arbitrators, mediators, and other professionals.

This reflects a broader shift in interdisciplinary education. Earlier efforts mainly followed a "Law + AI" model, in which law schools incorporated artificial intelligence into legal education. A complementary model is now emerging—"AI + Law." Technology-oriented universities are beginning to integrate legal rules, ethics, governance, and dispute resolution into the design and deployment of AI systems. Rather than asking only how lawyers should use or regulate AI, they also ask how legal values and dispute-resolution mechanisms can be embedded in technology itself.

The ODR Forum's move from Harvard in 2026 to Tokyo in 2027 marks a further shift from West to East and highlights the growing connection between artificial intelligence, legal governance, and dispute resolution. Its location at a technology-oriented institution also reflects a move from integrating AI into legal education to incorporating legal values, procedural safeguards, ethics, and dispute resolution into the design and governance of AI systems. This development suggests that future legal professionals will increasingly need to collaborate with engineers, computer scientists, and technology specialists in addressing AI-related legal and institutional challenges.

VIII. Reflections on AI-Era Legal Education and Law Firm Recruitment

Figure 9.  From the traditional “Paper Chase” model of case reading and pen-and-paper analysis to an “AI Chase,” including the “LLM²” model for preparing AI-enabled lawyers for foreign-related and cross-border practice.

The Harvard ODR Forum, the related conferences and hackathon, the post-conference law school visit, the reflection on Northwestern Law’s long-term development in computational law, and the forthcoming 2027 ODR Forum in Tokyo all point to the same question: how should law schools prepare students for AI-enabled legal practice, and how should law firms identify graduates who are genuinely ready for it?

A. From the Paper Chase to the “AI Chase”: Reforming Legal Education for AI-Enabled Practice

The traditional “Paper Chase” model of legal education centers on intensive case reading, independent analysis, Socratic questioning, legal writing, and examinations. These methods remain valuable because they train students to identify issues, defend arguments, and think under pressure.

In the AI era, however, legal education must move toward an “AI Chase.” This does not mean replacing the Socratic method with technology. Rather, law schools should combine AI with Socratic teaching. Students may use AI to generate arguments, identify counterarguments, compare authorities, or test possible solutions, while teachers question the reliability, assumptions, omissions, and legal consequences of AI-generated responses.

Teachers and law schools must therefore adapt as well. They need to understand how AI can be used in teaching, assignments, feedback, and examinations, and how to assess both independent reasoning and responsible AI use. For example, a student could first prepare a legal memorandum independently and then revise it with approved AI assistance, explaining the prompts used, verifying the authorities, and identifying which suggestions were accepted or rejected.

The shift from the Paper Chase to the AI Chase is not a retreat from rigorous legal education. It expands legal training from reading and reasoning alone to questioning, verifying, and supervising AI. A meaningful measure of a law school is therefore not only its ranking or reputation, but whether it prepares graduates to meet the changing needs of employers, clients, and society.

B. From Academic Performance to Professional Capability

Grades remain important, but in the AI era they may reveal less about a student’s actual abilities than before. Traditional grading was not designed to test whether students can use, evaluate, and supervise AI responsibly. At the same time, undisclosed or excessive AI assistance may make polished work appear to reflect abilities the student has not independently demonstrated.

A student with excellent grades may still struggle to verify AI-generated authorities, understand a client’s real objectives, organize incomplete facts, or convert legal analysis into a practical solution. Another student with less distinguished grades may show stronger judgment in negotiation, online mediation, contract review, digital-evidence analysis, or AI-assisted dispute-resolution design.

Law firms should therefore look beyond grades and institutional prestige. Recruitment should also assess whether candidates can define the real problem, protect confidential information, identify unreliable AI output, understand the parties’ underlying interests, compare alternative strategies, and use AI to explore creative solutions that go beyond a conventional win-win compromise.

Clinics, simulations, internships, mentoring, and project evaluation can help law schools and law firms identify these capabilities. Law schools should retain responsibility for academic standards and professional ethics, while firms can bring real-world problems, client perspectives, and professional judgment into the training process.

C. LLM²: Implications for the Training of China’s Foreign-Related Legal Talent in the AI Era

The shift in legal training is especially important for foreign-related legal talent. As Chinese enterprises accelerate their global expansion and the cross-border operation of AI products and digital platforms becomes increasingly common, lawyers must not only master traditional areas such as contracts, trade, investment, litigation, and arbitration, but also develop expertise in data compliance, algorithmic governance, digital evidence, online dispute resolution, platform responsibility, and cross-border enforcement.

Chinese law firms may increasingly value what may be called an “LLM²” graduate: a law graduate who combines a formal law degree—for example, an LL.M.—with systematic training in LLMs, or large language models. LLM + LLM should not be read literally as 1 + 1 = 2. The “²” is used figuratively to express a multiplicative rather than merely additive effect. The idea is not limited to LL.M. students.  It applies more broadly to law graduates who are preparing for foreign-related legal practice and can use AI effectively and responsibly.

Viewed through selected Forum locations—from New York in 2015 to Beijing in 2016, and from Harvard in 2026 to Tokyo in 2027—the ODR Forum traces a striking West–East–West–East pattern, reflecting the increasingly global development of ODR and, more recently,  AI, legal education, and legal practice. This transformation is no longer confined to one country or legal system. It increasingly connects how law is taught, how lawyers are trained and recruited, and how disputes are handled across borders. The next stage will require law schools and legal institutions worldwide to prepare lawyers who combine independent judgment, responsible AI use, and international legal competence.

The conference agenda is available on the official 2026 ODR Forum agenda page: https://odr2026.org/agenda/ 

Disclaimer: This article is for general reference only and does not constitute legal advice.All content is copyrighted. Republication requires prior authorization via our official WeChat account or comment section.