Why are you taking what is clearly a legal problem and making it about the technology? The law could simply grant attorney-client privilege to chatbots. Nobody is arguing the advice was bad or more expensive than a real lawyer.

Because it's the law misunderstanding technology.

Chatbots are not people. They are computer programs. And there's no other realm I can think of where merely interfacing with a computer program breaks attorney-client privilege.

It is equivalent to saying an email to your lawyer breaks privilege because you communicated with gmail. And it gets turbofucked when you consider that a program may be sending your information to an LLM. Would this same judge rule that having copilot installed in Outlook also breaks privilege because they "chatted with an outside party" while drafting an email (even if they didn't intend to send it to copilot)?

I can't think of a reason this isn't about the technology.

The obligations placed on lawyers with regards to misrepresentation are a kind of check on the power of attorney-client privilege which would generally not exist for chatbots, so it's not obvious that this would be a good idea.