Client interviewing gives law students a task where legal knowledge and conversational judgment meet. The student needs to understand the account, distinguish facts from assumptions, explain the scope of the meeting, and identify questions that remain open.
An AI conversation exercise can provide a fictional setting for rehearsing those choices before a faculty debrief. Here is a module design that keeps the teaching objective and review evidence explicit.
Define a narrow interviewing outcome
For a first exercise, use an outcome such as: “The student identifies the client's priorities and checks a factual summary before discussing next steps.”
This does not ask the student to resolve the whole matter. It gives the instructor something observable to review. More advanced exercises can add negotiation, explanation of uncertainty, or a jurisdiction-specific issue taught in the course.
Write a fictional brief with a clear professional role
Consider a fictional client seeking advice after a workplace disagreement. Give the learner the meeting's purpose, the information already available, and the limits of their role. Define what facts the counterpart initially shares and what details may emerge through appropriate questions.
Have the responsible faculty member review any legal content. The AI counterpart should provide material for an interview, rather than act as a source of authoritative legal advice.
Ask for an interview that adapts
Build one meaningful correction into the case. For example, the student may initially hear that the client wants to leave a job, but the counterpart explains that their priority is staying while resolving a particular issue.
The correction gives the learner a chance to demonstrate listening. Review whether they update their understanding or continue toward the outcome they initially assumed.
Useful opening prompts include “What would you most like this meeting to help you understand?” and “Which part of the sequence should we clarify first?” They are examples to adapt, not a script every student must recite.
Use a short, evidence-based rubric
| Criterion | Evidence in the interview |
|---|---|
| Scope | Explains the meeting's purpose and the learner's role |
| Fact gathering | Uses questions that clarify the account without adding facts |
| Client priorities | Checks what matters to the client and responds to correction |
| Summary | Separates established information from unresolved questions |
| Next steps | Describes an appropriate next step within the exercise's boundaries |
For each criterion, define anchors with faculty. A score should refer to what the student demonstrated in this exercise, not claim general readiness to represent clients.
Debrief a selected exchange
Ask students to choose a turn where their understanding changed. They explain what they believed before it, what the counterpart said, and how they adjusted the interview. Faculty can then compare the explanation with the transcript.
If generated feedback is used, check its evidence. A statement that the student “identified the legal issue” needs faculty review of the actual account and the course material. Plausible wording is not sufficient.
Place the module in the curriculum
The ABA's standards and guidance provide the relevant source for U.S. law schools evaluating experiential education requirements. Course approval depends on the current standards and the school's design; using an AI exercise alone does not establish compliance.
EmpatiQ supports course content, AI conversation practice, and the supporting review record for law schools. Start with a small faculty-reviewed module, examine its relevance, and decide how it complements existing interviewing and experiential learning activities.
Talk about your law program or read the guide to reviewing a practice conversation.