[pclmulqdq]

Typos don't really matter in legal complaints, except for looking unprofessional. It would be a waste if my $1000/hour lawyer spent their time proofreading, honestly. The typos also guarantee that I'm getting a real, logical human writing my complaint rather than someone faking it with ChatGPT.

Typos in long-lived documents like contracts, patents, etc. matter quite a bit, by contrast. See eg the second amendment, where billions of dollars have been spent over a few commas.

[vasco]

What proofreading? Just click the spellcheck button.

[LordAtlas]

I hate spelling mistakes in professional work as much as anyone, but the spell-checker would not catch "principal" being used for "principle".

[boplicity]

This is actually one of my favorite uses for contemporary AI technology. It very much can (and does) catch this type of spelling error. Google Docs does this for me quite often. It's not always right -- but it often prompts me to review exactly this type of situation. It's pretty amazing, really.

[rafark]

Yeah several spell checkers are context aware like grammarly (I haven’t used it in a long time though).

[MauranKilom]

Because no message has ever had its meaning twisted by overzealous spellcheck. No ducking way.

[dooglius]

Spellcheck wouldn't catch either of these errors

[pclmulqdq]

Lawyers often don't spell check the same way you do, for fear that it changes the semantics of a sentence.

This could be an AI tools market, although I think several companies are already in it.