[atmavatar]

> I want a lawyer armed with LLMs, who's more effective than the previous generations of lawyers.

From what we've seen thus far, there's a non-zero chance the lawyer armed with LLMs will submit a brief generated by said LLM without reviewing it, which makes the judge none too happy.

Look at how people handle bringing their cell phones with them while driving. Some people won't use it at all. Some will play music (unrelated to driving but overall neutral as long as they aren't fiddling with it). Some will use it for GPS driving assistance (net positive). But, many will irresponsibly use it for texting/talking while driving, which is at least as bad as being inebriated and can lead to harming themselves and others.

Don't expect people to be any more or less responsible with LLMs.

[simonw]

I want my lawyer armed with LLMs to not do that.

There are some promising AI-driven tools these days that use search against archives of cases to help check that citations aren't garbage. I'm hoping lawyers start using them to help pick apart each other's laziness.

[danaris]

> I want my lawyer armed with LLMs to not do that.

The only way to guarantee that is to have a lawyer not armed with LLMs.

We've seen dozens of examples already of lawyers doing exactly that. (Some of them have then doubled down in court, to their eventual detriment.)

If you're making a habit of using LLMs to draft briefs for you, how long before you just forget to check the cited cases to replace the hallucinated ones with real ones? Or decide not to check, because surely they'll be fine this time...only they're not?

[simonw]

I believe it's possible for a lawyer to be more competent that, even if they have access to LLM tools.