The upside of this is that it could prevent self-represented defendants from trying to apply legal arguments or concepts in the wrong context. Pro se defendants

The upside of this is that it could prevent self-represented defendants from trying to apply legal arguments or concepts in the wrong context. Pro se defendants do this all the time and it really pisses off judges. ChatGPT has a reputation for being "confidently wrong", but in my experience it's less likely to make that specific category of error. The downside is that I hire a traffic ticket attorney because they've been handling a cases similar to mine, in the same court circuit, almost every day for years. Legal work isn't about knowing the law. It's about knowing how the system works in a particular place and time. ChatGPT was trained on many thousands of various legal cases. But it can't ever really understand how a given court works unless many people have written about that place and posted it to the internet. I feel like it would be much better for people to just type their case into the ChatGPT prompt and ask "What argument should I use?", and then take that into the courtroom. Ask it what counter arguments to expect, what the standards of evidence are, etc. You can even prompt it with "Pretend you're a traffic court judge. How would you respond to this argument?" Essentially use it as a research tool for people who are brave or foolish enough to represent themselves. Not sure how much benefit there is in having that in the room with you.