I understand the points about aesthetics but not law; the judge is there to interpret legal arguments and a lawyer who presents an argument with false premises, like a fabricated case, is being irresponsible. It is very similar with coding, except the judge is a PM.
It does not seem to matter where the code nor the legal argument came from. What matters is that they are coherent.
I'm sure you can make a coherent argument for "It is illegal to cry on the witness stand", but not a reasonable one for actual humans. You're in a formal setting being asked to recall potentially traumatic incidents. No decent person is going to punish an emotional reaction to such actions. Then there are laws simply made to serve corporate interests (the "zoot suit", for instance within that article. Jaywalking is another famous one).
There's a reason an AI Judge is practically a tired trope in the cyberpunk genre. We don't want robots controlling human behavior.
An AI judge is not what I'm talking about and I think that would be a terrible idea. The only thing I'm expecting an AI lawyer to do is generate text that may or may not read as a coherent legal argument. It is the human lawyer's responsibility to present the argument to the court and it does not matter whether the argument came from their head or from a computer; they are responsible for it similar to how a programmer is responsible for the code they include in a pull request.
It does not seem to matter where the code nor the legal argument came from. What matters is that they are coherent.