Temitope Omotola Odusanya, PhD, Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Law & LLM Law Programme Course Leader, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK; Email: t.odusanya@rgu.ac.uk; ORCID: 0000-0001-7782-265X
Presentation (Blog) at the International Future of Law Association (IFLA) Conference 2025, Host: London South Bank University, UK, and King’s College London (KCL), 3rd & 4th of July 2025, focusing on Generative AI and the future of Legal Education and research
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence (AI); Equity; Gender Parity; Generative AI (GenAI); Legal Education; Gender Bias in AI and Inclusive Pedagogy.
Introduction
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) alone cannot resolve the deep-rooted inequities in legal education; it is important to consider gender parity so that technological advances do not simply reproduce existing disparities but actively promote inclusion and fairness. The convergence of gender parity and GenAI in legal education, therefore, marks a fundamental moment in reimagining both pedagogical practice and social equity. Although women now constitute the majority in many law classrooms globally, structural inequities persist across faculty ranks, leadership positions, and professional advancement pathways. Gendered attrition patterns, particularly at mid-career stages, reflect deeply embedded institutional cultures that disadvantage women and gender minorities. These disparities are further compounded for individuals from diverse racial, ethnic, and socio-economic backgrounds, whose experiences remain underrepresented in legal academia. At the same time, GenAI tools, ranging from large language models like ChatGPT to intelligent tutoring systems and legal analytics platforms, are reshaping legal education through personalised learning, automated reasoning, and unprecedented access to knowledge. Yet, this technological evolution unfolds within a profession historically shaped by patriarchal norms, raising urgent questions about whether AI will mitigate or magnify existing gender disparities.
At the core of this tension lies a critical insight: GenAI systems, while capable of simulating legal discourse, do not comprehend meaning. As token-based prediction machines, they can replicate legal language convincingly without grasping its explanatory dimensions. This epistemological limitation becomes particularly troubling when AI-generated outputs reinforce biased legal assumptions or reflect exclusionary data structures. For instance, when prompted to generate images or texts about judges, AI often defaults to male representations, thereby perpetuating stereotypes embedded in historical datasets. When AI is integrated without a gender-responsive lens, legal education risks deepening disparities, masked as innovation. Conversely, if designed with intentional equity safeguards, including inclusive curriculum reform, algorithmic transparency, and educator training in AI ethics, GenAI holds transformative potential to democratise legal learning, amplify underrepresented voices, and foster a more just legal education. Through a critical synthesis of technological, pedagogical, and intersectional perspectives, a reform agenda emerges, one that recognises GenAI not only as a site of potential risk but also as a powerful lever for advancing gender justice in legal education.
Gender Shift in Law Schools and GenAI Opportunities
For the ninth consecutive year, women have held a majority presence in law schools, signalling a significant shift in the gender composition of legal education. In 2024, women accounted for approximately 56% of students enrolled in American Bar Association (ABA)-approved law schools, continuing a trend that began in 2016. Notably, women comprised 55.9% of the entering first-year class, according to the Law School Admission Council, reflecting sustained progress toward gender balance at the student level. This demographic shift has broader changes within the legal profession, where women now comprise approximately 41% of all practicing lawyers in the United States (Reuters, 2024).
Despite these advances, the numerical majority of women in legal education does not automatically translate to equitable representation in academic leadership or senior professional roles, stressing the persistent structural barriers that must be addressed. As GenAI becomes increasingly integrated into legal pedagogy, this progressing gender backdrop presents both challenges and opportunities. Harnessing GenAI to support inclusive learning environments can amplify women’s participation and success, but it requires intentional strategies that confront underlying disparities. By aligning AI with the realities of women’s
growing presence in law schools, legal education can better advance gender parity in both educational outcomes and professional trajectories.
Why Gender Parity and GenAI Must Converge in Legal Education
The future is here, and legal education stands at a defining point, where the simultaneous rise of GenAI and the urgent need for gender parity present both a challenge and a call to action. Legal pedagogy has long been dominated by the Socratic method and adversarial classroom dynamics, which have reflected disparity structures. These manifest not only in faculty representation and career progression but also in classroom participation, grading, and access to prestigious opportunities. Meanwhile, GenAI systems, if left unexamined, may reinforce these disparities by replicating biased ancient data and amplifying dominant narratives, as evidenced by recent findings from UNESCO showing AI-generated images overwhelmingly depict white men in positions of authority. The adaptation of AI into law classrooms is not just a technological shift; it signals a pedagogical revolution that demands equity as a foundational principle, not a retrospective correction.
This invites a radical reimagining of legal education, one where AI tools do not replace human judgment but rather support inclusive, critical, and context-sensitive learning environments. Arguably, if GenAI is intentionally designed with care, it could potentially democratise access to legal knowledge, personalise instruction, and elevate underrepresented voices in legal discourse. But such outcomes are not guaranteed, as there is reason to ask whether expectations for AI’s transformative potential are overly optimistic or premature. Do we truly understand these technologies well enough to place our trust in them? Despite their promise to revolutionise legal education, generative AI systems have significant limitations, ranging from opaque decision-making processes to ethical concerns about bias and accountability. Without critical scrutiny and comprehensive understanding, uncritical reliance on AI risks reinforcing, rather than dismantling, existing disparities. Real progress will depend on integrating AI thoughtfully, ensuring that technological adoption is accompanied by sustained institutional reforms and a pedagogy centered on human values, equity, and inclusivity.
Without a gender-responsive framework and institutional safeguards, AI risks becoming a mirror that reflects and perpetuates systemic exclusion. As Prakash G and Nair (2024) argue, bridging the widening gap between legal theory and practice requires not only
AI literacy and ethics but also a critical understanding of how technology intersects with structural inequality. The time to act is now: embedding fairness into the algorithms we deploy, redesigning classrooms with equity at their core, and ensuring that legal education evolves as a moral and social practice, one that equips future lawyers not only to navigate a tech-driven world but to shape it justly.
Navigating GenAI and Gender Parity in Legal Education
The integration of GenAI in legal education heralds transformative possibilities for broader access to legal knowledge and fostering inclusive learning environments. By enhancing research efficiency, personalising educational experiences, and supporting virtual engagement, GenAI tools hold particular promise for addressing structural barriers faced by women and gender minorities, especially those balancing caregiving responsibilities alongside academic and professional pursuits. These technologies can bridge gaps between students from resource-rich institutions and those with limited access, amplifying underrepresented voices and levelling the academic playing field. When intentionally designed and implemented with equity at the core, GenAI can facilitate bias detection in legal content, promote inclusive language, and enable AI-powered mentorship and career development programmes that help women transition into leadership roles within the legal profession.
However, these opportunities coexist with significant challenges that must be confronted to ensure GenAI’s role advances rather than undermines gender parity. AI systems trained on historical legal data risk perpetuating entrenched biases, producing stereotypical outputs, and excluding marginalised voices if datasets lack diversity and inclusivity. Ethical concerns surrounding data privacy, algorithmic transparency, and faculty deskilling further complicate AI’s deployment in legal pedagogy. Overreliance on AI tools may weaken crucial mentorship dynamics, disproportionately affecting those already facing structural barriers. Legal educators bear a distinct ethical responsibility to critically engage with these challenges, situating AI integration within the broader frameworks of equality and anti-discrimination law. By promoting transparency, accountability, and adherence to human rights principles, educators can help ensure that these strategies underpin a more inclusive and ethically grounded legal education.
To harness GenAI’s full potential, legal education must adopt deliberate, gender-responsive strategies: embedding bias mitigation contexts in AI tools, training educators in AI
literacy and gender sensitivity, engaging gender experts in content review, and fostering student participation in AI governance. Institutional reforms and regulatory oversight are essential to create equitable, accountable systems that safeguard human rights principles. Together, these measures can ensure GenAI catalyses a paradigm shift toward a more inclusive, just, and technologically adept legal education.
GenAI and Gender Bias in Legal Workplace Culture
GenAI offers promising tools to transform workplace culture in the legal profession, particularly by supporting women’s work-life balance through flexible, AI-enabled remote work options. Advanced algorithms also hold potential for identifying and mitigating unconscious bias in hiring, promotion, and evaluation processes. In addition, AI-powered virtual mentorship platforms can facilitate safe, accessible professional development and networking opportunities for women. However, as Dra. Trilce Fabiola Ovilla Buenohighlights, gender bias in AI stems from datasets reflecting societal inequalities and a lack of diversity among predominantly male AI developers, which risks perpetuating discrimination rather than eliminating it.
Despite AI’s transformative promise, critical questions remain regarding its limitations, transparency, and ethical deployment. Overreliance or uncritical trust in AI without a deep understanding of risk fortifies existing disparities. Therefore, meaningful progress depends on thoughtful AI integration coupled with sustained institutional reforms and a human-centered pedagogical approach. Legal education must balance leveraging GenAI’s benefits with vigilant scrutiny and commitment to equity to ensure these technologies genuinely advance gender parity rather than replicate structural biases.
Advancing Gender Parity and Ethical GenAI Integration in Legal Education
The deployment of AI systems in legal contexts such as hiring, criminal justice, and risk assessment presents significant ethical challenges, notably the risk of perpetuating entrenched gender biases. These biases threaten fairness and equality in decision-making processes, undermining legal protections and exacerbating disparities in recruitment and justice administration. Addressing these concerns requires transparency in AI decision-making and robust regulatory advancement mandating regular audits and accountability for biased outcomes. Ethical guidelines alone are insufficient; enforceable legal oversight is essential to ensure that AI serves as a tool for fairness and inclusivity rather than discrimination.
Looking ahead, advancing gender parity within legal education demands targeted initiatives that translate female majority presence in classrooms into equitable leadership representation. Strategies include the development of gender-balanced AI training datasets and the adoption of hybrid learning models, nurturing flexibility and community. Central to this vision is the imperative that women actively co-create and govern GenAI technologies, shaping their design and deployment rather than passively using them. Embedding algorithmic accountability and fostering inclusive innovation must become core components of legal training, ensuring technology advances hand-in-hand with justice. Only through intentional, inclusive, and integrity-driven reform can legal education evolve beyond teaching law to modelling a fairer, smarter profession.
Conclusion: Embracing Gender Parity and Innovation in Legal Education
Gender parity and GenAI combination present a revolutionary opportunity to build a legal education system that is both more equitable and technologically advanced. Harnessing GenAI without embedding gender parity risks perpetuating existing disparities, but when fairness and innovation merge, legal education transcends instruction to become a powerful model for justice. The future of the profession depends on creating classrooms that are not only smarter but also inclusive, reflecting and advancing genuine gender parity.
The growing capabilities of GenAI offer the potential to reshape legal pedagogy through enhanced inclusivity and adaptive learning. Realising this capacity demands continuous critical evaluation, adaptive reforms, and interdisciplinary collaboration among legal scholars, AI developers, and gender experts. Stakeholders must champion proactive, equity-centered AI adoption, ensuring legal education fosters not only technological proficiency but also social justice. Ultimately, the future of gender parity in legal academia hinges on how GenAI mediates learning, requiring inclusive datasets, institutional accountability, and ethical commitment. Law schools bear a unique responsibility to interrogate both the capabilities and impacts of GenAI with a focus on beneficiaries and the broader goals it serves.
References
American Bar Association, 2024 Profile of the Legal Profession (ABA, 2024)
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2024/11/2024-profile-of-the-profession/accessed 13 July 2025.
Aswathy Prakash G and Vishnu Nair, ‘Integrating Generative AI into Legal Education: From
Casebooks to Code, Opportunities and Challenges’ (2024) 6(3) Law, Technology and Humans 60 https://lthj.qut.edu.au/article/view/3640/1542
Charles Ho Wang Mak and Temitope Omotola Odusanya, ‘Gender-competent legal education:
edited by Dragica Vujadinović, Mareike Fröhlich, and Thomas Giegerich, Cham, Springer, 2023, 709 pp., £44.99 (hardcover), ISBN 978-3-031-14359-5’ (2025) The Law Teacher 1-4 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03069400.2025.2492470.
Dra Trilce Fabiola Ovilla Bueno, ‘Gender Bias in Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Perspective
and Legal Analysis’ (2024) 26 Amicus Curiae 20 https://doi.org/10.22201/fder.23959045e.2024.26.90464 accessed 13 July 2025.
Law School Admission Council, 2024 Class First Impressions (LSAC, 2024)
https://www.lsac.org accessed 13 July 2025.
Kim Piaget and Yanjun Guo, ‘Progress despite uncertainty: Key findings from the Global
Gender Gap Report 2025’ (World Economic Forum, 11 June 2025) https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/06/global-gender-gap-report-2025-key-findings/ accessed 14 July 2025.
Reuters, ‘It’s the Decade of the Female Lawyer’ (Reuters, 2024) https://www.reuters.com
accessed 13 July 2025.
Temitope Omotola Odusanya, ‘Pedagogical Impacts of ChatGPT and Other LLMs (The
Scottish Informatics and Computer Science Alliance (SICSA) and Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen (RGU) School of Computing, June 2024, Event (LinkedIn, 21 June 2024). https://www.linkedin.com/posts/drtemiophdesq_linkedin-education-chatgpt-activity-7100486187676565504-E9RD accessed 13 July 2025.
UNESCO, ‘Generative AI: UNESCO study reveals alarming evidence of regressive gender
stereotypes’ (7 March 2024) https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/generative-ai-unesco-study-reveals-alarming-evidence-regressive-gender-stereotypes accessed 13 July 2025.
