An AI lawyer, operating within reasonable bounds, could absolutely be an asset to criminal defendants and parties to civil litigation. You could reduce a basic

An AI lawyer, operating within reasonable bounds, could absolutely be an asset to criminal defendants and parties to civil litigation. You could reduce a basic discovery request to mad libs. I'd go so far as to say you could do the same with motions for summary judgment, requesting depositions, and other things. They wouldn't be optimal, but they wouldn't be of a level worthy of sanctions. It's just protectionism from the private bar who doesn't want to lose easy billables, and fear from prosecutors, creditors, and the like who realize that their system would collapse if half their opposition could force them to do some real lawyering a time or two. If every criminal defendant and debtor could squeeze three hours of drafting documents and individualized courtroom attention out of opposing counsel, it wouldn't be the guy using the AI coming out worse than the status quo. You can argue that the consequences would be negative for society, but it's laughable to say they'd be negative for litigants. DCS can barely knock down scarecrows; a few mediocre pleadings that demand a response from child support obligees and other parties would send them crying into early retirement.