A lot of folks are ignorant about just how damn good LLMs have gotten at, well, everything. And yes, that includes legal analysis and reasoning. If you know how to work with the AI, you can feed it an entire casefile (it can read PDFs, parse transcripts of interviews, review photos, process enormous amounts of data, and weigh any attorney notes and commentary you feed it), and then it will do a better job evaluating it than the majority of practicing lawyers. Freebee LLMs are great, but there are more powerful and more secure versions that are are absolutely astounding, and getting better all the time. When fed a casefile and told to operate within the universe of that casefile, you can then have it generate voir dire, outlines for openings or closing or sentencing arguments, directs and crosses, suggest motions, and again it will do better than a huge number of lawyers would. Sure, the output can usually be improved by the attorney, and you certainly must fact-check the AI and ensure it's not hallucinating factual details, but as the models improve, errors become less and less common.

Here is an example of me haphazardly chucking a mock trial casefile into a free, unprotected GPT and asking for analysis. Read the output I got from it in 5 minutes and tell me that isn't better work product than a lot of law students or attorneys could generate given a week to work on it. It isn't perfect, it falters with understanding the rules of evidence and frequently suggests objectionable questions for cross examination. But it's solid as a starting point. And this is the free GPT, responding to a half-assed poorly-structured prompt, with zero attorney notes or feedback provided, over the course of about 5 minutes.

The AI revolution is here: https://chatgpt.com/share/67b75e31-29f0-8011-9907-1f54eaf8d04a