Doesn't look like it. Perhaps you'd like to fill us in on it? If my guess of what it sounds like is anything what it actually is, then I'd be really curious about knowing more.
You can use a bitcoin-like system to build an agent that holds money in escrow and then automatically delivers it when a condition is met[1]. This is the simplest form of a "Smart Contract."
Most contracts are credible because their terms can be enforced by sanctioned violence. "Smart Contracts" are credible because they are enforced by distributed verifiable cryptographically-secure automation.
[1] For example, when the DMV database confirms that a certain car is now registered in my name, you automatically get 4 bitcoin.
You're right in that smart contracts won't help with the qualitative aspects of our legal system but they will still help to organize the paper trail and will definitely improve how fuzzy conditions and exceptions are managed.
Smart contract systems are based on cryptographic signatures and chains of transactions (Merkle Directed Acyclic Graph). Instead of contracts being spread across many different databases with many different kinds of authentication mechanisms, they would all be in one format and they would all link to each other in a provable way. This could be an entirely centralized system and still have the same benefits.
However, using a Bitcoin-like system with decentralized trust removes even more of the legal overhead as many contracts can be entered in to and settled without the participants even needing to know who they're dealing with.
At the very least we should at least be moving to a Merkle DAG based system of contracts, centralized or not!
