> It was my understanding that there is also no legal liability for a lawyer for giving the wrong answer.

There is plenty of legal, ethical and professional liability for a lawyer giving the wrong answer, we don't often see the outcome of these things because like everything in the courts they take a long time to get resolved and also some answers are not wrong just "less right" or "not really that wrong."

I think the reason you rarely see the outcomes is because those disputes are typically resolved through mediation and/or binding arbitration, not in the courts.

Look at your most recent engagement letter with an attorney. I’d bet that you agreed to arbitrate all fee disputes, and depending on your state you might have also agreed to arbitrate malpractice claims.

I believe all practicing attorneys carry malpractice insurance as well as E&O (errors and omissions) insurance. I think one of those would "cover" the attorney in your example, but obviously insurance doesn't prevent poor Google reviews, nor would it protect the attorney from anything done in bad-faith (ethical violations), or anything else that could land an attorney before the state bar association for a disciplinary hearing.

> I believe all practicing attorneys carry malpractice insurance as well as E&O (errors and omissions) insurance.

Nit: Malpractice insurance is (a species of) E&O insurance.

Yes. If the drafted language falls below reasonable care and damages the client, absolutely you can be sued for malpractice.

Wrong Word in Contract Leads to $2M Malpractice Suit[1].

[1]https://lawyersinsurer.com/legal-malpractice/legal-malpracti...

It's called malpractice

I mean, sure, if the attorney is operating below the usual standards of care -- it's exceptionally uncommon in the corporate world, but not unheard of. In the case of AI assistance, you run into situations where a company offering AI legal advice direct to end-users is either operating as an attorney without licensing, or, if an attorney is on the nameplate, they're violating basic legal professional responsibilities by not reviewing the output of the AI (if you do legal process outsourcing -- LPO -- there's a US-based attorney somewhere in the loop who's taking responsibility for the output).

About the only case where this works in practice is someone going pro se and using their own toolset to gin up a legal AI model. There's arguably a case for acting as an accelerator for attorneys, but the problem is that if you've got an AI doing, say, doc review, you still need lawyers to review not just the output for correctness, but also go through the source docs to make sure nothing was missed, so you're not saving much in the way of bodies or time.