Answer - probably not.

But courts are very likely (in my view) to take a very very dim view of the introduction of some kind of barrack-room "AI lawyer". It will slow things down by introducing potentially spurious arguments which wouldn't have been made by either a represented party, or unrepresented party.

Given the courts are a public service, this isn't necessarily zero sum - unrepresented parties do take longer in court, but I very strongly suspect in the life of a whole case, parties with an aspiring barrack-room AI lawyer will take up more court time. Especially if their argument loses coherency or starts to contradict itself.

This is not an AI problem, I have seen more than a few time Lawyers contradict in different parts of a case. One example off the top of my head is when Lawyers attempt aurge that social media platforms are both publishers and platforms so they can not be held liable at all under any circumstance

> One example off the top of my head is when Lawyers attempt aurge that social media platforms are both publishers and platforms so they can not be held liable at all under any circumstance

... that would be very surprising, since there is no legal definition nor distinction of publisher or platform.

Yes there is.

Cite the law, then. It's not in 47 USC section 230, which is the main legal citation that matters for social media platforms.

No, there isn't.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/29/stubborn-n...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-...

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/10/20/section-230-basics-there...

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/it-doesnt-matter-if-tw...

https://www.cato.org/blog/newspapers-are-spreading-section-2...

Even TechDirt manages to get this right, but the myth that tech companies exist on the knife's edge of being converted under the law into publishers is stubborn.