It matters in terms of remediation: incompetence implies that lawyers require better technical education on LLMs, while malice implies that the lawyer has violated an already established rule or law.
Lawyers undergo continuing legal education throughout their careers; in many (most?) jurisdictions, it’s mandatory. “LLMs are not legal search engines” as a CLE topic in the next decade would not surprise me remotely.
That should be read as "the presence of incompetence implies that those incompetent lawyers [...]." Sorry if you found the phrasing ambiguous.
(The only really important part of the original comment is the part about CLEs: we have an entire professional educational system that ought to be able to accommodate subjects like this.)
Yes but be merciful to an unfortunate fool who believed in technology! ChatGPT proved, like the Ouija board, to be the very voice of Satan himself for this lawyer. Bwahahahaaaaaah!8-)
Lawyers undergo continuing legal education throughout their careers; in many (most?) jurisdictions, it’s mandatory. “LLMs are not legal search engines” as a CLE topic in the next decade would not surprise me remotely.