I totally agree but I think your defense is even too generous to the other side. For me, it is a little laughably naive, the lack of recognition of how complex &quot;lawyering&quot; actually is. Fancy NLP does not even get within several orders of magnitude of that.<p>Lawyers are meant to achieve positive results for clients even in litigious circumstances. For instance, in an auto accident case, a lawyer must carefully consider how best to present medical evidence to get the best possible offer in a settlement negotiation.<p>Lawyers must consider creative solutions to legal problems that are not as others suggested &quot;just finding precedent snippets.&quot;<p>How do I even explain my complex case to the AI lawyer, assuming it is not some kind AGI Overlord? It&#x27;s sort of stupid, I&#x27;m sorry to say, to me to see it suggested that lawyers can be replaced by LegalZoom+NLP. Maybe these people have never needed a lawyer for anything other than what they consider to be perfunctory paper pushing or they think we should not have an adversarial legal system.<p>If I have a serious legal problem I will take a serious firm of experienced lawyers over an NLP system. I guess if your outcome doesn&#x27;t matter to you, you can pick what you like. It reminds me of the saying about the lawyer defending himself having a fool for a client.