"Attorney Lin Shang-lun's Special Article: Did AI Defeat Three Lawyers? Don't Get It Wrong, This is the Prologue of 'Lawyer 2.0'"

A recent driving dispute in Taiwan turned violent, and the beaten motorcycle rider turned to "generative AI" to write a complaint, and finally successfully won the case. Lawyer Lin Shanglun, deputy secretary-general of the Bitcoin and Virtual Currency Development Association, explained that AI is not replacing lawyers. (Synopsis: Can AI overturn the case? No lawyer woman relies on ChatGPT to dig up 5 million inheritance fraud and persuade the court to restart the investigation) (Background supplement: Lawyer Lin Shanglun's special article from Harvey and Lawsnote judgment, see the copyright war in the AI era) Recently, a news that "car accident victims use AI to win three lawyers" has sparked heated discussions in the community. The intuitive reaction of many fellow legal practitioners is that this is nothing more than grandstanding. After all, a criminal injury case that was beaten after a car accident, the facts are clear, plus the prosecutor investigates and prosecutes, it is a "sure win". Winning, it seems, does not prove the power of AI; If you lose, that's called news. However, if our insights stop there, we miss out on the profound changes revealed in this case about the future of the legal industry. Carefully deconstructing the operation of this party, he did not randomly throw the facts to the AI, but carried out a series of extremely "correct" steps. This incident accurately indicates that under the wave of AI, the core value of legal workers is shifting from "executor" to "orchestrator". Opinion 1: Your free consultation is becoming the top fuel for AI The most critical step in this case is that the Prompt (instruction) entered by the parties to the AI is not a one-sided statement by a person, but "integrates the conclusions and suggestions of multiple lawyers after free consultation". This is worthy of the vigilance of all legal people: in the era of AI, unpaid professional output is being "value-added" in ways we did not expect. The most frightening ability of generative AI lies in its efficient integration of "unstructured data", so that meeting minutes, strategic notes, and factual statements can be transformed into logically rigorous legal documents. But the quality of AI's output depends entirely on the quality of the input, the so-called "Garbage In, Garbage Out". One can only vaguely say, "I was beaten, how should I sue?" The results of Prompt, which integrates "the analysis of several lawyers' contention, evidence strategy and basic judgment of the right to claim", produce a world of difference. In other words, the free consultation you provide out of goodwill, the professional judgment and litigation strategy in your brain have invisibly become the "top fuel" for optimizing the other party's AI Prompt. The party is taking your wisdom and hiring a year-round, low-cost AI assistant. Therefore, I must bluntly say that the business model of free consultation has failed, and in the future, every professional output is a valuable "Prompt project". Perspective 2: From legal craftsman to "case arranger" The second highlight of this case is that the parties have shown a clear "layered processing" thinking. He knows how to break down the pleadings into "statements of fact" and "basis of claims", and personally check the law to avoid the "hallucination" of AI. What does this reveal? He understands the "structure" of a legal case. This is the essence of the lawyer's profession, and it is also the core ability that AI cannot replace in the short term - to become a "Orchestrator". The client comes to the door with an injury case, and our value is reflected in: Systematic classification: We can immediately determine that this involves a criminal injury offence and can bring an incidental civil action. Precise disassembly: We understand the difference between the "constituent elements" of a criminal offence and the "basis of claim" of civil infringement. Architecture design: We know how a qualified pleadings should lay out the facts, cite the law, and organize the arguments. These bodies of knowledge, which are deeply rooted in our minds, are the "blueprints" for designing the case handling process. With the help of AI, the role of the lawyer is no longer a word-for-word craftsman, but a strategizing commander. Our core work will become: Define: Transforming a client's chaotic narrative into a precise legal battlepoint. Process Design: Plan the complete path from evidence collation and strategy development to pleadings generation. Task assignment (DeleGate): Each link will be designed and a precise prompt will be issued to the AI to execute efficiently. Verify: Audits AI outputs, verifies their correctness, and injects strategic fine-tuning and human care. Conclusion: The future belongs to legal people who know how to control AI This case is not a doomsday wake-up call for the legal profession, but a prelude to transformation. It tells us that the value of purely literal legal work is rapidly being diluted. In the future, the competitiveness of the legal industry will no longer depend on who is better at memorizing the law or who is better at writing. The real winners are those who know how to "structure" their professional knowledge and harness the powerful tool of AI through precise "orchestration". Mastering the "choreographer" thinking is not only for survival, but also for the purpose of mastering irreplaceable absolute advantages in the next generation of legal service market. Related reports OpenAI is valued at $300 billion, overfinancing 8.3 billion magnesium! The deep logic of annual revenue of $13 billion and weekly active users exceeding 800 million Figma skyrocketed 250% on the first day of listing: Why are collaboration platforms more irreplaceable in the AI era? "Lawyer Lin Shanglun's Article" AI beats three lawyers? Make no mistake, this is the prologue to "Lawyer 2.0" This article was first published in BlockTempo's "Dynamic Trend - The Most Influential Blockchain News Media".