Sure, yeah, but, the lawyer could also just be wrong or lying, in the end he presents his side of the story which is to be as convincing as possible with wildly open to interpretation word salads, you know, human talking to human.
I find it terrible that he would use AI to do that kind of things instead of doing it himself, certainly.
But it would be orders of magnitude worse if he used AI to produce a highly precise, very structured text, with 0 margin for interpretation and for which any 'hallucination' might very well be critically disastrous, and yet mostly undetectable for most humans, like, you know, producing code, maybe ?
But for some reason, that seems to be much more acceptable if not very much recommended or even enforced. (!?)