Move Over Wright & Miller--Is ChatGPT the Only Secondary Source You Will Ever Need? Spoiler Alert...It\u27s Not!

AI tools like ChatGPT are increasingly widespread, and despite an uncertain future due to a rapidly evolving technology landscape, they are likely here to stay. Many of the digital tools used by law students and lawyers will soon be incorporating sophisticated AI technology into their platforms. Students already use ChatGPT to brainstorm, proofread their papers (or write them entirely), summarize information, and more. Failing to integrate ChatGPT into the legal research curriculum not only risks diminishing our professional authenticity with students but could also lead to the devaluation of traditional legal research skills in favor of convenient, albeit less reliable AI solutions. Consequently, it’s crucial that we find a place for ChatGPT within legal research. This presentation suggests that we incorporate ChatGPT within the existing research framework as a secondary source. As with any secondary source, it is essential to educate students on ChatGPT’s strengths and weaknesses. This is especially crucial when instructing novice legal researchers. ChatGPT offers several advantages, such as: Explaining complex legal topics in plain language. Summarizing lengthy documents. Identifying relevant primary sources. However, we must also discuss ChatGPT’s limitations, including: Imprecise and/or fabricated responses. Limited access to quality training data. Outdated information (pre-2021). Dependence on the quality of user-drafted prompts. Difficulty in recognizing legal exceptions. Ethical concerns. While incorporating ChatGPT into the existing legal research curriculum poses challenges for legal faculty, its inclusion is essential to stay relevant and provide students with a comprehensive understanding of available research tools. This proposal emphasizes the need for faculty to name it to tame it. By doing so, faculty can empower students to leverage AI and ChatGPT\u27s capabilities while educating them on potential pitfalls and ensuring they retain a strong foundation in traditional legal research methods