Ethical Issues and Reputation Damage of AI Essay Writing Services like lawwriter.ai

The rapid development of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, has presented new challenges and temptations within higher education. For law students, the pressure of coursework can make the idea of using AI to generate an essay seem appealing. This essay will argue that submitting an AI-written essay is a counter-productive and unethical choice for any law student. It will first explore why this practice is detrimental to a student’s academic and professional development, failing to represent their true capabilities. Secondly, it will analyse how a service that explicitly offers to write law essays, such as the hypothetical ‘lawwriter.ai’, inevitably damages its own reputation by positioning itself in opposition to the core values of the academic and legal communities.

The Negative Consequences for the Law Student

Using AI to write a law essay is fundamentally a form of self-sabotage. While it may offer a shortcut to a finished piece of work, it bypasses the entire purpose of the assessment, which is to develop and demonstrate essential legal skills. This can be broken down into three main problems: it undermines skill development, constitutes a serious ethical breach, and creates a false representation of a student’s abilities.

Undermining Essential Skill Development

A law degree is not simply about memorising legal rules; it is about learning how to “think like a lawyer” (Johns, 2011). Law essays are a primary tool for developing this ability. The process of researching a topic, identifying relevant case law and legislation, analysing different legal arguments, structuring a coherent response, and referencing sources correctly are all fundamental skills for a future legal career. When a student uses AI to generate an essay, they outsource this entire learning process. The AI performs the “work” of structuring the argument and synthesising information, leaving the student as a passive observer. Consequently, the student fails to practice the critical analysis, argumentation, and legal research skills that are assessed in examinations and are indispensable in legal practice. This is a “stupid” decision in the sense that it is profoundly short-sighted, sacrificing long-term competence for short-term convenience. A student who relies on AI for coursework will likely be unprepared for closed-book exams or practical advocacy exercises, and will certainly be at a disadvantage when entering the legal profession.

The Ethical Breach of Academic Integrity

Beyond the practical foolishness, using AI to write an essay is a clear act of academic misconduct. All UK universities have strict policies on plagiarism and cheating, which require that submitted work must be the student’s own. Submitting text generated by an AI model and passing it off as one’s own is a form of plagiarism and deception. It falls into the category of ‘contract cheating’, where a third party is used to produce work for a student. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) has long warned of the threat that “essay mills” pose to academic standards (QAA, 2017). AI essay-writing services are simply a technologically advanced version of this problem.

This ethical failure has consequences beyond the university. The legal profession is built on a foundation of trust and integrity. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) requires solicitors to act “with integrity” and “in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession” (SRA, 2019). A student who begins their journey into law by cheating on their qualifying degree demonstrates a fundamental lack of the integrity required for practice. If such misconduct were to be discovered, it could have serious implications for their ability to be admitted as a solicitor, as it raises significant questions about their character and fitness to practice.

Misrepresenting Personal Capability

Assessments are designed to provide a measure of a student’s understanding and ability at a particular point in time. An essay grade is not just a mark; it is feedback from an academic on the student’s strengths and weaknesses. When a student submits an AI-generated essay, they are presenting a false picture of their own capabilities. This deceives the university, which is awarding a qualification based on the presumption of authentic work. More importantly, it deceives the student themselves. They receive a grade that does not reflect their own knowledge or skills, preventing them from identifying areas where they need to improve. This lack of accurate self-awareness means they cannot effectively target their revision or seek appropriate support, further hindering their development. The essay ceases to be a tool for learning and becomes merely an exercise in deceit.

The Reputational Harm to an AI Essay-Writing Service

While a student who cheats harms themselves, a company that facilitates this cheating damages its own reputation and long-term viability. A hypothetical service named ‘lawwriter.ai’, which overtly offers to write law essays, would be building its brand on a foundation that is fundamentally at odds with the values of its target environment.

Conflict with Academic Institutions and Regulators

A service like ‘lawwriter.ai’ would immediately be classified by universities and regulators as an “essay mill.” Its business model would be based on encouraging and enabling academic misconduct. As a result, academic institutions would view it as an antagonist, not a partner. Universities are actively investing in and implementing sophisticated AI detection software to identify non-human-generated text. They are also updating academic misconduct regulations to explicitly prohibit the unauthorised use of AI for assessment (Newton and Draper, 2023). Therefore, ‘lawwriter.ai’ would be in a constant battle with its own customers’ institutions. Furthermore, regulatory bodies such as the QAA work to expose and disrupt such services. By naming itself so explicitly, the service invites scrutiny and opposition, damaging its reputation among the very institutions that govern its target market.

Perception within the Legal Profession

The legal profession places an extremely high value on ethics, integrity, and earned expertise. A company whose brand is synonymous with cheating would be viewed with disdain by solicitors, barristers, judges, and legal academics. It would have zero credibility within the professional legal community. This toxic reputation would make it impossible for ‘lawwriter.ai’ to ever pivot or expand into the legitimate and lucrative legal technology (“legal tech”) market. No reputable law firm or chambers would partner with or purchase services from a brand known for helping students to cheat their way through law school. The company’s reputation would precede it, permanently barring it from being considered a serious or trustworthy player in the legal field.

A Limited and Tainted Brand Identity

The reputation of a service like ‘lawwriter.ai’ is damaged even among its potential users. While it may attract desperate or dishonest students, its brand is inherently one of risk, dishonesty, and low quality. Students are aware of the dangers of being caught and the severe penalties involved. Moreover, the known tendency of AI models to “hallucinate”—that is, to invent facts, cases, and citations—makes the output unreliable and risky to submit without extensive checking, which defeats the purpose of the shortcut (Eaton, 2023). Therefore, the company’s reputation is not that of a high-quality, reliable service, but of a shady and dangerous gamble. This brand identity, built on facilitating misconduct, ensures the company remains on the fringes, unable to build the trust necessary for sustainable growth or a positive reputation in any legitimate sense.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the decision to use AI to write a law essay is a poor one from every angle. For the student, it is a “stupid” act that prevents the development of essential legal skills, an unethical breach of academic and professional standards, and a misrepresentation of their true ability. It is a shortcut that leads to a dead end in terms of personal and professional growth. For a service like the hypothetical ‘lawwriter.ai’, building a business model around this practice is equally ill-advised. It creates a reputation that is toxic within the academic world and anathema to the legal profession. By aligning itself with academic misconduct, such a company alienates itself from regulators, professionals, and any potential for a legitimate future, ensuring its reputation is permanently damaged and confined to the unethical fringes of the education market.

References

Eaton, L. (2023) *AI and academic integrity: The good, the bad and the in-between*. University of Calgary. Available at: https://utoday.ucalgary.ca/story/ai-and-academic-integrity-good-bad-and-between (Accessed: 15 May 2024).

Johns, F. (2011) ‘Thinking like a lawyer’. In: D. K. Brown and J. E. Pate, eds., *The Law School Book: Succeeding at Law School*. Foundation Press, pp. 19-30.

Newton, P. M. and Draper, M. J. (2023) ‘Should we be worried about AI-plagiarism? The UK’s first survey of university policies for generative artificial intelligence’, *International Journal for Educational Integrity*, 19(1).

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). (2017) *Plagiarism in Higher Education: Custom Essay Mills*. Available at: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/plagiarism-in-higher-education-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=33a6f281_12 (Accessed: 15 May 2024).

Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). (2019) *SRA Principles*. Available at: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/principles/ (Accessed: 15 May 2024).