[applfanboysbgon]

Is it perhaps possible that you won your case because you didn't break the law, or conversely because the other party did break the law? Unless ChatGPT persuaded a judge to side in your favor even though you were legally in the wrong, this really doesn't tell us anything at all. (And even in that circumstance, it might speak more to the complete incompetence of the other party's legal representation.)

[agentprose]

In my case, the defendant was indeed breaking the law, but it was a "new" law untested by case law, so it was somewhat risky how a judge would interpret it. The counsel of record for the defendant was bringing "recycled briefs" energy, possibly out of overconfidence.

[uneoneuno]

It is clear by how you're talking you may not be a 'lawyer' but your exposure to building and handling your case (very cool with AI I agree) has clearly elevated your lawfare knowledge above average levels.

[duped]

Please don't make the word "lawfare" a thing. It was invented by a criminal to argue that being investigated for his crimes was somehow corrupt.

[agentprose]

This might be an instance of unfairly giving the native Anglo-Saxon roots a lower, vulgar status. if you were to calque it to ivsdvctvs nobody would bat an eye.