> First you invent a language no one else can comprehend

It’s just English (or whatever the official language of the country you’re in is).

> It's the job of the state to educate and make information on this available

The state does make this information available. It’s still your job to learn it. They’re not going to beam it into your head.

Practicing law is like plumbing. You can try to do it yourself, or you can hire an expert to help. Most people are better off with an expert.

It's not just English. Some words exist in normal english and law english, and yet have entirely different meanings. You have to study to understand the meanings. You have to study to understand the contexts in which words appear and in which they are even relevant.

I strongly disagree on both points.

It's not "just English". There is a reason legal corpus is a separate thing. Just because a language uses the same grammar skeleton doesn't mean it is the same language.

If I were to train a model on all of written English excluding Legal Corpus and then ask it to interpret Legal corpus texts it'd be a disaster. The opposite is also true.

> The state does make this information available.

There was a 2nd part about it being comprehensible. That 2nd part goes hand in hand with my point above. More often than not legal texts are made to scare people away. Thankfully with LLMs we're seeing that changing rapidly. More and more people are able to educate themselves because the knowledge is no more gated behind a cryptic writing only select few can interpret.

And I am sure the next step is rewriting all of it into a human-friendly language.

I still see value in rigorous proceedings and there is value in a lawyer who can help you with strategic advice on legal. But that indeed is more of a plumbing work.

It sucks though, that the law is written in such a way, that most people are better off not reading it themselves, but getting an expert. It says something about our laws.