Skip to content

Day 4: AI Ethics Debate + Legal Entrepreneurship

Lesson Overview
Time 50 minutes
Objectives Use evidence to argue a position in a structured debate about AI in the legal system; identify one entrepreneurial opportunity in the legal field; identify one professional association
TEKS d(3)(I), d(3)(H)
Deliverable Position statement (5-7 sentences) + Legal Entrepreneur Card (1 career, 4 fields completed)
Materials Chromebooks, printed AI Ethics Debate cards (FOR and AGAINST), printed Entrepreneur Card template, projector for sentence stems

Warm-Up (5 min)

WARM-UP: Should a computer program be allowed to decide whether someone goes to jail? Write your initial reaction in one sentence.

Take 2-3 responses without arguing the question yet. Note who says "yes" and who says "no", you will use this to balance the debate teams.

Activity 1: Set Up the AI Ethics Debate (8 min)

Introduce the topic: courts in some states are already using AI tools to recommend bail amounts, predict recidivism (whether someone will commit another crime), and analyze evidence. Some judges trust the tools; some refuse to use them.

The question for today's debate: Should AI be used in the legal system to help make decisions about people's freedom?

Split the class into two teams (FOR and AGAINST). Use the warm-up reactions to balance the teams, assign students to argue the OPPOSITE of their initial reaction. Real legal professionals must argue both sides of an issue.

Provide each team with a debate card listing 3 starter arguments. Teams have 10 minutes to add at least one more argument with evidence from H&L research, news headlines, or the iCivics gameplay from Day 3.

Sentence stems (project on the board):

  • "I believe AI should/should not be used in the legal system because _____."
  • "One piece of evidence that supports my position is _____."
  • "A real legal career affected by this would be _ because ___."

Facilitation Tip

Tell students upfront: arguing a side you disagree with is a lawyer skill. Lawyers must understand the opposing side's argument to win. This frames the debate as practice, not personal opinion.

Frame the debate at the system level, not the personal level

Before the debate starts, name the lens explicitly: today's question is about the technology and system design: whether an AI tool is accurate and fair enough to be part of legal decision-making at all. It is not about any specific case, any specific person, or any student's family. Students in this class may have family members who have interacted with courts, police, or immigration enforcement; keep the debate on the tool, not on who deserves an outcome.

Activity 2: Structured Debate (15 min)

Run the debate using a tight structure to keep all students engaged:

  • Round 1 (3 min each side): Opening arguments. Each team's spokesperson states the team's main position with one piece of evidence.
  • Round 2 (3 min each side): Rebuttal. Each team responds to one specific point the other team made.
  • Round 3 (2 min each side): Closing. Each team makes a final case in 2 sentences.

The teacher moderates as a "judge." Track which team uses the most evidence, not the loudest team. After the debate, students write their personal position (which can match or differ from the team they argued).

DOK 4: What criteria would you use to evaluate whether AI should be used in a specific part of the legal system, like determining bail amounts? Consider fairness, accuracy, and ethics in your answer.

Pivot to the Day 4 secondary objective: legal entrepreneurship. Many legal professionals run their own businesses, solo-practice attorneys, mediators, legal consultants, private investigators.

Students complete the Legal Entrepreneur Card (4 fields):

Field Example (Solo-Practice Family Lawyer)
Career name Solo-Practice Family Lawyer
What the business does Helps families with divorces, custody, adoption
Startup needs Law degree, bar license, office space, malpractice insurance
One professional association they would join Texas Bar Association or American Bar Association Family Law Section

Each student picks ONE legal career that could be entrepreneurial (Solo Lawyer, Mediator, Private Investigator, Legal Consultant, Court Reporter freelancer, Notary Signing Agent) and completes the card using H&L career profiles, BLS data, and a 5-minute Google search.

[H&L PLATFORM] Students return to the H&L Hat Finder, click on a Legal Services Hat (Lawyer, Paralegal, Mediator), and check the "self-employment" or "work setting" data. This data shows what percentage of professionals in that field run their own business.

DOK 3: What conclusions can you draw about the risks and rewards of starting your own law practice versus working for a large firm?

Exit Ticket (7 min)

EXIT TICKET (Short Constructed Response — position paper draft) · Printable PDF:

Draft your AI ethics position paper (5-7 sentences). This is a STRUCTURED short response; each numbered point must appear as at least one sentence in your draft.

  1. Position: I believe AI should / should not be used in legal decisions. (Circle one.)

  2. Evidence that supports my position (one piece from today's debate, iCivics gameplay, or H&L research):

  1. One legal career that would be affected by this choice and WHY:
  1. One professional association that might weigh in on this issue (from my Entrepreneur Card research):

(d(3)(I), d(3)(H))

You will polish this draft into the final submission tomorrow.

Differentiation

  • Support: Pre-filled debate cards with 3 arguments per side and evidence already attached. Sentence stems posted on each table. Position paper template with fill-in blanks.
  • Extension: Students argue BOTH sides of the AI debate in two separate paragraphs and identify which side has the stronger evidence. They also research a real court case where AI was used (e.g., COMPAS recidivism tool).
  • ELL: Bilingual debate sentence stems and entrepreneur card. Pre-teach: Debate = Debate, Evidence = Evidencia, Entrepreneur = Empresario, Association = Asociación. Pair ESL students with bilingual peers in the same debate team.