No, because clerks are capable of learning from their mistakes. LLMs aren’t capable of knowing they made one, much less learning from it.
You are trying to equate people with things.
Yes AI is a thing, a thing I use to find relevant cases and statutes. Which I then read and review.
Just like 30 years ago I used things called research books to find relevant cases and statutes , which I then read and reviewed.
Those research books no longer exist. They’ve been replaced by online finding sources that use AI, in various forms.
Guess I can no longer practise law.
If you use “AI” then you aren’t, you are just fooling around with lies and hallucinations.
Moderating:
You have made your point. You are now attacking posters. You also seem to be ignoring everything other posters have said in this thread.
Drop it now. If that’s all you have to say, you can leave the thread.
What difference does this make? To a client or the court if a mistake goes through uncorrected - leading to potential negative consequences - why do they care if it was made by a clerk whose work wasn’t checked or AI whose work wasn’t checked?
I attended a seminar recently at which both a judge and a major client (an insurer) stated they not only accepted but expected lawyers to use AI. In the former case they said they expected it to happen but were OK with it as long as the lawyers signing off on the work understood they needed to check AI output and would be held responsible if it was wrong. In the latter case they explicity stated they understood that using AI for (say) discovery or summary of documents may lead to errors but that their expectation was that this would permit some errors to go through but that overall they would effect savings in legal costs.
Your blanket, un-nuanced position that lawyers using AI should be punished is completely out of step with every major stakeholder.
I don’t even like AI and never use it. I know reality when it’s slapping me in the face, though.