It's a catchy name, though ironically tritium is not legal in the US, generally[1] (for "frivolous purposes"). Guess this is serious software!
> Except for persons who manufacture, process, produce, or initially transfer for sale or distribution self-luminous products containing tritium, krypton-85, or promethium-147, and except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, any person is exempt from the requirements for a license set forth in section 81 of the Act and from the regulations in parts 20 and 30 through 36 and 39 of this chapter to the extent that such person receives, possesses, uses, transfers, owns, or acquires tritium, krypton-85, or promethium-147 in self-luminous products manufactured, processed, produced, or initially transferred in accordance with a specific license issued pursuant to § 32.22 of this chapter, which license authorizes the initial transfer of the product for use under this section.
... and also because it is ambiguous / error-prone / subject to interpretation, especially when figuring out antecedents of pronouns, referents, and textual boundaries.
I tried four times to read the above by paragraph without reformatting it with some parentheses etc, but failed.
I have a gun with a tritium-based night sight (so the sight dots glow with no light), and it came with documentation about the provenance of each of the three tritium vials.
I also believe it is a crime to break open a sealed tritium vial.
I've seen a bulleted list being used for both conjunctions and disjunctions within the same document and in both cases it was not obvious from context (it was related to conditions for receiving funding)
As to whether I know any lawyers interested in that kind of thing -- I think your thing would face the same kind of issue that others in this thread have identified: why would lawyers be interested in a product that, at the end of the day, helps them bill fewer hours? You could argue that some law firm could use it as their secret sauce like Whatsapp used Erlang or something like that, but I don't think that the legal space has many people interested in this kind of innovation.
To the extent the law can be parsed as English you could generate CSTML documents by parsing the text of laws (or even writing laws in CSTML) but I think the "secret weapon" scenario is more likely in the present -- that a firm would use CSTML to show them effectively encode their current understanding of the structure of the text of the written law.