> Defendant (as dictated by AI): The Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. Smith in 1978...
> Judge: There was no case Johnson v. Smith in 1978. Case closed, here's your fine.
Next time please be more careful picking the lawyer.
(Your hypothetical includes a fine, so it isn't clear whether the offense in your hypothetical is one with, shall we say, enhanced sixth amendment protections under Gideon and progeny, or even one involving a criminal offense rather than a simple civil infraction, but...) in many cases lack of a competent attorney is considered structural error, meaning automatic reversal.
In practice, that means that judges (who are trying to prevent their decisions from being overturned) will gently correct defense counsel and guide them toward competence, something that frustrated me when I was a prosecutor but which the system relies upon.
>Judge: that case does not exist. Ask it about this case instead
>AI: I apologize for the mistake, that case is more applicable. blah blah blah. Hallucinates an incorrect conclusion and cites another hallucinated case to support it.
Judge: The actual conclusion to the case was this, and that other case also does not exist.
Isn't that the same thing? Seems fine to me, I know the legal system is already pretty overwhelmed but eventually it might get so good everyone could be adequately represented by a public defender.
Speaking of, I remember reading most poor people can only see the free lawyer they've been assigned for a couple minutes and they barely review the case? I don't understand how that is okay, as long as technically they're competent even if the lack of time makes them pretty ineffective...
BREAK BREAK
My jurisdiction (the military justice system) is a bit of an oddball, but I generally (softly) disagree with your last paragraph.
In jurisdictions with good criminal justice systems, most cases don't take that long to review. Possession of marijuana case, the officer stopped you for a broken taillight, smelled or claimed to smell marijuana, asked you if it was okay if he takes a look. You said okay. He finds a tiny amount of a green leafy substance in a small plastic bag. He says, "Hey look, marijuana is not that big a deal but lots of this stuff is laced with other things. This is just marijuana, right?" and you respond "Yes, sir, just marijuana, I don't mess with any real drugs." Prosecution is offering a diversion deal with probation and no permanent criminal record.
The correct answer in that case is to take the deal. We are not going to win by arguing that Raich was wrongly decided or that the officer lied about smelling it (because we're probably talking state court, so Raich doesn't matter, and you consented to the search, so the pretext, even if it was pretextual, also doesn't matter). We also aren't going to win attacking the chain of evidence, because the drug lab results don't matter, because you admitted it's marijuana.
In that case, yes, I'm going to take all of about 4 minutes to strongly advise the client to take the deal.
The rest of my comment I dropped the '/s' for. I think it's wild some people think current LLMs can replace lawyers... The absolute best I would think they could currently do is maybe speed up research for paralegals. I was just imagining expecting a judge to QA a private companies software and thought it was really funny.
I know it sounds scary when stats get thrown around like "Over 90% of defendants plead guilty without a trial!" but that's usually pursuant to a generous deal from an overworked prosecutor's office who absolutely does not want to do a freaking jury trial because you were desperate to get to work and couldn't get a ride.
Obviously, if the underlying reason your license was suspended is extreme (vehicular manslaughter, 3rd+ DUI) then their tune will probably change, but that's an extreme minority of cases. Those are the ones that go to trial.
"All rise!"
Also, the original post is about the traffic ticket. I'm pretty sure if the judge hears a reference to something he had never heard before, he'll be like "huh? wtf?"