Between us, we've vibe-coded dozens of interactive teaching tools this year — token visualizers, prompt coaches, hallucination games, automation bias simulations, fairness explorers, document tech galleries, citation-checking workflows, syllabus modernizers. The tools are different, but the pattern has been the same: see a pedagogical gap, describe what you want, and have AI build it.

In this session, we'll pull back the curtain on how we actually build these tools — the prompts, the workflow, the iteration, and the judgment calls that make vibe coding work for legal education. We'll start with a concrete example of something one of us couldn't have done before but built with relative ease, to set the stakes for what becomes possible when the cost of building software collapses. We'll then talk about when it's safe and ethical for non-professionals to reach for these tools — when, in other words, you can responsibly use a chainsaw to do ice sculpting — and what kinds of structured inputs make the work more reliable. From there, we'll walk through real examples side by side: the pedagogical problem, the tool we built, and what it took to get there. We'll talk honestly about what vibe coding is good at, where it falls apart, and why the people closest to the teaching problem should be the ones building the solution.

Then we'll turn it over to you. Whether that means building something live in the room or walking away with a workflow and resources you can use that evening, our goal is the same: by the end of this session, you should believe you can do this too — because you can. We'll share a resource library with open-source tools, reusable prompts, and lessons learned to help you get started at https://lawascode.com/.

No prior coding experience required. That's the whole point. But bring your laptop!

Speaker