There is a significant difference between providing an accurate or even a thorough legal answer, and providing a legal opinion that is strategic, that is likely to be trusted and followed by the client, that does not create additional liability for the client and that zealously protects the client's legal rights.

Advice vs. strategy. Consider the difference between advising whether a company can legally claim a certain tax deduction, and providing a legal opinion about how to structure a multinational company and where to incorporate it so as to maximize R&D tax credits while minimizing long-term tax liability given the company's likely investors, manufacturing needs, customer base and exposure to certain types of litigation. In my field of work, AI might soon be able to draft and file a trademark application, albeit with limited regard to maximizing potential legal rights or avoiding longer-term risks and liabilities. But AI cannot yet devise a strategy to minimize and spread costs and risks over time, while maximizing potential rights, and positioning the rights globally with respect to likely competitors.

While AI may be programmed to recognize some of its own limitations in order to advise clients when they should seek more capable legal representation, as a human lawyer is expected and in many instances required to do, it will take considerably more progress before AI appreciates the difference between when a client needs an answer and when it needs legal strategy.