Why is the robot not "speech"?

[EDIT] That is, would they be immune from e.g. malpractice if they did this so they "weren't representing" the defendant?

If the book was a generalized "choose your own adventure" where you compose a sensible legal argument from selecting a particular template and filling it in with relevant data - use of the book essentially lets the user find the pre-existing legal advice that is relevant to their situation.

Chatbots as a system are arguably a lot more like the latter than the former - its a tool that someone can use to 'legal advise' themselves.

> Here's how it was supposed to work: The person challenging a speeding ticket would wear smart glasses that both record court proceedings and dictate responses into the defendant's ear from a small speaker.

Also, probably wouldn't matter. The interactive human-ish-like nature might cross the line to being considered as counsel, even if you said it wasn't. See my response to your other comment.

"Speech" would be like publishing a book about self-representation. "Counsel" would be providing advice to a defendant about their specific case. The machine would be in the courtroom advising the defendant on their trial, so that's counsel.