Could be, which is why you have a lawyer to put guiderails on and give a "are you sure you want to go down this path?".
> Telling an attorney what should literally be in his response to a motion, ignores all his/her knowledge about motion practice, the law, and evidence which will be relevant to the question.
No, because before a lawyer files the response they have to (well, they should) both read, understand, and verify that it is in fact a valid response to file. Not doing so can get them sanctioned.
It's also their job to bring up to the client "Look, I know you want to file this but in my experience you'd really be better served if you did this instead".
> Could be, which is why you have a lawyer to put guiderails on and give a "are you sure you want to go down this path?".
Guardrails are the wrong way to think about the relationship. The attorney is not your mother and you are not a toddler. The attorney is not there to figure out the 1000s of different ways for you not to get hurt, when you present them with a bogus response. Why? Because verifying the 1000s of ways for you not to get hurt is often a waste of time which will cost you time and money itself.
A better way to think of the relationship is a partnership. A: I feel business needs to do X. B: I think X with a few addendums stands a better chance of success, but will cost a few dozen deep research hours, which likely can't be handled by AI. A: Can you cap my cost at $Z? B: Done.
> No, because before a lawyer files the response they have to (well, they should) both read, understand, and verify that it is in fact a valid response to file. Not doing so can get them sanctioned.
Simply being formally valid is not enough. Most clients want to have a reasonable chance of success?
Moreover, attorneys like doctors, shouldn't simply be considered instruments of your desires. Especially in litigation contexts where they have other independent duties to fulfill. Attorneys, for instance, are not allowed to simply ignore adverse precedent.
A: The AI said X and Y and Z. B: That's fine, but we need to be sure we have addressed the relevant case law in this jurisdiction. A: The AI was last updated a week ago. B: Afraid we have to a deeper search than Claude.
> The attorney is not there to figure out the 1000s of different ways for you not to get hurt, when you present them with a bogus response.
They are, because they are a partner with you in law. Part of their job is working with you and looking out for your best interests.
> Because verifying the 1000s of ways for you not to get hurt is often a waste of time which will cost you time and money itself.
That verification is what you are shortcutting but also not what you are after. You want their experience to be able to say whether or not a path is good. The fact is, there's no 1 right way to do things and what you really want is "is this reasonable".
> Most clients want to have a reasonable chance of success?
Most clients want to pay the least amount of money possible, including legal fees (In civil cases). "Success" isn't really measurable beyond "will this bankrupt me".
There's also not a lot of guarantees that this motion or that motion will ultimately drive down the cost of the case. There are literally thousands of motions that get field especially when talking about corporate lawsuits.
Could be, which is why you have a lawyer to put guiderails on and give a "are you sure you want to go down this path?".
> Telling an attorney what should literally be in his response to a motion, ignores all his/her knowledge about motion practice, the law, and evidence which will be relevant to the question.
No, because before a lawyer files the response they have to (well, they should) both read, understand, and verify that it is in fact a valid response to file. Not doing so can get them sanctioned.
It's also their job to bring up to the client "Look, I know you want to file this but in my experience you'd really be better served if you did this instead".