And if the matter was actually to be judged by any of your counterexamples I doubt there would be any concerns raised about the ability to understand senses and

And if the matter was actually to be judged by any of your counterexamples I doubt there would be any concerns raised about the ability to understand senses and nuances of "hacking". The abilities of these gentlemen of exceptional achievement in technology show little about most people aged around 70 though. As I see it, the point of the parent was probably actually prejudice against the technical understanding among law professionals, with intersection of (about) 70 years of age relevant because those cohorts would often have had their education and early professional experience before computer technology became so pervasive that it's routinely involved in legal cases. I'm sure law professionals can be just as capable as a 60-year-old of understanding that words in English can mean more than one thing, but there has been plenty of reporting on HN and elsewhere over the years indicating that in practice the chances of inadequate technical understanding affecting the outcome of court cases are significant. What do you think about the apparently not blatant enough lawyerism? Is it justified, on the basis of actual competences out there and case assignments? Personally I think it seems like a valid concern.