When advising clients, ie not litigation, most every relevant supreme court case is boiled down to a single sentence. Nuance isn't relevant to a client who is trying to avoid ever having to litigate anything. They don't want to be that close to any legal lines. So you wouldn't turn the AI loose on the judge's written decision, rather the boiled-down summaries written by a host of other professionals. Things like this:
The one sentence that matters is decided later though, right? The court doesn't write 10 pages and then point to a single sentance to listen to, that's a matter of what the public and/or law enforcement key in on.
For future cases the full explanation does still matter too, especially from the Supreme Court. People only remember 9 words from the Miranda decision but the rest of the 10 pages are still case law that can absolutely be used to impact future cases.
Cases yes. The pages matter to lawyers. But day to day clients pay lawyers for the practical (short) answers on which they can build corporate policies.
Maybe I'm way off base here, but in my opinion bothering with lawyers is useless unless I'm worried about litigation. If I only care about corporate policy then I won't bother with legal council at all, at best I'd lean on HR who can have more relevant insights related to company culture and change management.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...
Miranda full decision: ten pages. The bit that matters in the real world? Literally nine words.