Quite the opposite. I think the lawyer is brilliant and and is sowing the seeds for the "troubled young man" defense, similar in structure to the "Affluenza" defense:
Affluenza excuse == from the aforementioned article “He never learned that sometimes you don’t get your way,” Gary Miller, a psychologist assigned to Couch said in court. “He had the cars and he had the money. He had freedoms that no young man would be able to handle."
With crafty wording a new defense can be had. The had freedoms that no "troubled young man" would be able to handle. This case could have the same implications as the Affluenza case. As in the Affluenza case, with this case - supposing the lawyer gets a favorable judgement for the "troubled young man" defense - the defendant is not absolved for the wrong doing. The charges are greatly diminished due to the [mental] state of the accused. The Affluenza case is a travesty for exactly this reason. The charges and conviction should be in accordance to the direct interpretations of the law as they are applied to the case, not the defendant's capability to comprehend the nature and application of the law. Grace if any, could be extended in sentencing.
BTW: The DA is playing nice. I'm not so sure I wouldn't have replied with "I don't know how troubled he is because he has no trouble finding the car keys and the accelerator." I don't mean to sound cruel, cold and harsh; it just seems a gentle pull on his chain isn't working. Perhaps a fairly strong tug on the "family" chain is necessary.