Where appropriate. For instance, the purpose of lawyers is to serve and propagate the law, as distinct from 'most people say'. Justice in general is meant, imperfectly, to strive for correct answers on the highest possible level, even and especially if new accepted case law serves to contradict what was put up with before.

So, web programmers could be going against AI on the grounds of self-preservation and be wholly justified in doing so, but lawyers are entitled to go after AI on more fundamental, irreconcilable differences. AI becomes a passive 'l'estat, cest moi' thing locking in whatever it's arrived at as a local maximum and refusing to introspect. This is antithetical to law.

> For instance, the purpose of lawyers is to serve and propagate the law

But day to day, they spend a lot of their time selling boiler plate contracts and wills or trying to smuggle loopholes into verbose contracts, or trying to find said holes in said contracts presented by a third party[1]

Or if they are involved in criminal law, I suspect they spend most of their time sifting the evidence and looking for the best way to present it for their client - and in the age of digital discovery the volume of evidence is overwhelmning.

And in terms of delivering justice in a criminal case - isn't that the role of the jury ( if you are lucky enough still to have one ).

I suspect very few lawyers ever get involves in cases that lead to new precedents.

I believe an attorney is considered obligated to give a client the best possible defense (with limits as to ethics), which is definitely contrary to serving and propagating the law