Governing Digital Transformation: Reflections from a Collective Conversation at the 2026 SEALS Annual Conference – Part 5
One of the distinctive strengths of the Southeastern Association of Law Schools (SEALS) Annual Conference is its discussion-group format. Rather than a sequence of formal presentations, participants engage in sustained conversations where ideas evolve collectively and questions generate new questions.
During the discussion group, “Governing Digital Transformation: Regulatory Competition, Institutional Capacity, and the Future of Rights,” we spent more than two hours exploring one of the central challenges facing legal systems today:
How can law govern technological change that moves faster than legal institutions themselves?
What made the discussion particularly rewarding was not simply the diversity of expertise around the room—participants represented fields including intellectual property, administrative law, corporate law, contracts, comparative law, legal writing, antitrust, product liability, business associations, legal education, and technology law—but the way the conversation continuously expanded across disciplinary boundaries.
From One Question to Another
We began with what appeared to be a relatively straightforward question:
Are existing legal institutions capable of governing technologies that evolve faster than legislative and judicial processes?
Almost immediately, however, the discussion broadened.
Participants questioned whether legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, private technology companies, international organizations, or technical standard-setting bodies are best positioned to regulate emerging technologies.
Others emphasized that regulation itself increasingly reflects competing visions of innovation, precaution, competitiveness, and the protection of fundamental rights.
The conversation soon shifted from governance to power.
Several participants highlighted the growing influence of large digital platforms, asking whether private technological infrastructures increasingly exercise regulatory functions traditionally associated with governments.
AI as a Governance Challenge
Artificial intelligence quickly became the central lens through which many broader questions were examined.
Rather than debating AI in the abstract, participants explored practical legal problems:
- product liability for AI systems;
- whether AI should be understood as a product or a service;
- automated decision-making;
- allocation of legal responsibility;
- institutional capacity;
- corporate governance;
- professional responsibility;
- regulatory design.
The discussion illustrated how AI is no longer simply another subject of regulation. It is increasingly becoming part of the regulatory process itself.
An Unexpected Turn: Legal Education
One of the most fascinating aspects of the discussion was that participants themselves redirected the conversation toward legal education.
A simple question about technology governance evolved into a much broader debate:
How should law schools prepare future lawyers for an AI-driven profession?
Participants reflected on experiences at their own institutions.
Some described new AI courses.
Others argued that technology should instead be integrated across traditional doctrinal courses such as contracts, torts, business associations, and legal writing.
Several questioned whether AI competency should become a basic professional requirement similar to legal research or legal writing.
At the same time, many expressed concerns that overreliance on generative AI may weaken critical thinking, close reading, legal reasoning, and independent analysis.
Rather than reaching consensus, the discussion revealed an important tension:
How do we teach students to use AI responsibly without allowing AI to replace the intellectual habits that legal education seeks to develop?
Beyond the United States and Europe
As the discussion progressed, attention shifted toward comparative and international perspectives.
Participants considered whether digital governance is becoming increasingly fragmented or whether interoperable legal systems may eventually emerge.
The conversation examined regulatory developments across the European Union, China, India, Brazil, and other jurisdictions while emphasizing that debates about technology governance continue to overlook many perspectives from the Global South.
One particularly valuable intervention highlighted African approaches to sustainability, investment governance, and legal innovation, reminding us that many regulatory ideas often originate outside traditional centers of legal scholarship yet receive comparatively little international attention.
More Questions than Answers
Perhaps the most valuable outcome of the discussion was not consensus but the recognition that digital transformation challenges virtually every traditional assumption about law.
Can legal systems remain innovative while protecting democracy and fundamental rights?
Can regulation keep pace with exponential technological change?
How should responsibility be allocated when AI increasingly participates in legal, commercial, and governmental decision-making?
How should legal education evolve without abandoning the critical reasoning that defines the legal profession?
These are questions that will continue to shape legal scholarship, legal education, and legal practice for many years to come.
I am grateful to all the participants whose thoughtful interventions made this one of the most engaging conversations of this year’s SEALS Annual Conference.
Paolo Davide Farah, Paolo Farah