Even in that case, if these systems can be proven to be good enough, rules that require them to be consulted, and for the judge to justify the deviation (if any) from the automated reasoning, might be good.

To draw a parallel to a real system, in Norway a lot of cases are heard by panels of judges that include a majority (2 or 3 usually) lay judges and a minority (1 or 2 usually) of professional judges. The lay judges are people without legal training that effective function like a "mini jury", but unlike in a jury trial the lay judges deliberate with the professional judges.

The professional judges in this system has the power to override if the lay judges are blatantly ignoring the law, but this is generally considered a last resort. That power requires the lay judges to justify themselves if they intend on making a call the professional judges disagree with. Despite that, it is not unusual for the lay judges to come to a judgement that is different from what the professional judges do, and fairly rare for their choices to be overridden.

The end result is somewhere in the middle between a jury and "just" a judge. If proven - with far more extensive testing - that its reasoning is good enough, an LLM could serve a similar function of providing the assessment of what the law says about the specific case, and leave to humans to determine if and why a deviation is justified.