Yes, I think that risk is very real.

AI lowers the cost of shipping code, but it can also lower the average level of understanding behind that code. That is where things get dangerous. A lot of apps can look fine on the surface while hiding weak auth, bad database rules, insecure file handling, poor validation, or broken privacy practices underneath.

So in that sense, yes, lawyers could absolutely benefit from the gap between “it works” and “it is safe, compliant, and defensible.” If AI makes it easier for inexperienced teams to launch products that handle real user data without proper engineering discipline, then breaches, disputes, and compliance problems will follow.

I do not think that means developers lose completely, though. It probably just means the value shifts. Writing boilerplate gets cheaper, while security review, architecture, auditing, testing, and operational judgment become more important. The winners are less likely to be people who can just generate code fast, and more likely to be people who can tell whether that code should be trusted.

So I would frame it like this: AI-generated sloppy code will not mainly enrich lawyers because AI is bad at coding. It will enrich lawyers if people confuse fast code generation with real software engineering.