> Some lawyers bristle at clients setting strategic direction. They believe there’s a “correct way” to do things, they know it, and they’ll fight you if you disagree. In that case, get different lawyers.
The thing is -- there are correct ways to do things in the legal sphere. Litigation is highly professional and highly formal, and has only become more so. While sub rosa it's fine to ask an AI for advice, and to engage it in draft brief writing, summarization to bullets, etc., it's wild not to realize how much of litigation and the law is wrapped up in people and experience and intricate formal processes. Such as this court has local rules, and this judge likes his briefs this length and the arguments just so, this needs to be filed here, stamped by the clerk, and filed again over there.
AIs may be exceptionally clever, but they may misunderstand the theatre of a trial. They may overweight the importance of the law and then underweight human factors, like the importance of assigning blame, or the lack of credibility of certain witnesses, or the bad faith of certain actors. AIs may fail to give credence to the ordinary meaning of terms, or fail to emphasize that these are two sophisticated businesses which understand the technical terms. AIs are still very poor at actual "reasoning", that is, a deep consideration of the multitude of ways of looking at any one set of facts and/or words on the page.
One area in which this article is entirely right is -- one must manage attorneys, and you must make certain that legal costs don't become leverage against you. But there are points at which you say: Can this guy keep it all straight? Does he know how to be useful to his own defense and then does he know how to get out of his own way?