This is not the technology for it. Sure it might sorta kinda work in some circumstances. That doesn't make it a good fit.
Think of it like buying a refrigerator for storing clothes.
I assume you'd have access to AI lawyers too, better ones if you can pay for larger/newer models! Meanwhile the judges are N year old models because they are state funded, and they work 'fine'.
There's an interesting tradeoff here, a year or two ago maybe it got facts right 50% of the time. Everyone knew not to rely on it.
Now, suppose we are 90% of the way there, only technically proficient people would know not to trust it. (like not adding Internet Explorer toolbars! Or remembering to use ad blockers..)
A few years later, suppose we have spend a lot of money and effort getting it 99% of the way there, trusting it would be somewhat natural by then. And then for the important 1% of the situations, it would stand to cause real harm. 1% seems low, but for a million invocations, you'd have 10000 mistakes.
How many people take the first result on Google as gospel when looking things up?
Google pretty much guaranteed that their top results were relevant to the search query. And wikipedia had an army of people making sure everything was backed up by the references.
Crucially, neither claimed to be an arbiter of truth.
AI is pretty useful for a great many things, but to really attract more and more investment the current technique seems to be convincing people that AI is useful for everything.
Edit: corrected bad spelling with AI XD
LLMs are pretty decent at 'search' given the inherent knowledge compression, and some amount of inaccuracy is fine.