No, it’s not, and I’ll tell you why (I was thinking about this last night when I was drunk and posted that comment):

“Attorneys” can be separated from “Attorneys General” without changing their nature, but “Spider” cannot be separated from “Spider-Man” without fundamentally changing its nature. So, the pluralization of “Spider-Man” must be “Spider-Mans”, as awkward as that must sound. “Attorneys-General” is just a plurality of attorneys appointed to a specific position. It’s all quite abstract, really.

Attorneys are attorneys whether they are attorneys general, plural, or singular, General or otherwise. Being an attorney, general, or being plural attorneys, none of this changes whether or not they are fundamentally attorneys. The term “attorney“ is the key factor here. If we were discussing the term or title “Attorney-Cat”, we’d be back to the Spider-Man concept, especially if there were more than one of them, “Attorney-Cats”, if you will. “Attorneys-Cat”, I think you’ll agree, just isn’t right, because the fundamental nature of them being cats supersedes the happenstance of them also being attorneys.

In English, when pluralizing something, the pluralization follows the totality of what is being pluralized, not the term itself. English is a fucked up and messy language, cobbled together from at least 10 or 12 other languages (likely more), so, I don’t make the rules. I just do my best to interpret them.