Recently, a traffic dispute in Taiwan turned into a violent conflict, where the beaten motorcyclist sought help from 'generative AI' to draft a lawsuit and ultimately won the case. Lawyer Lin Shang-Lun, deputy secretary-general of the Bitcoin and Virtual Currency Development Association, interpreted this incident, emphasizing that AI does not replace lawyers. (Background: Can AI reverse a case? A woman without a lawyer relies on ChatGPT to dig up 5 million in inheritance fraud and persuades the court to restart the investigation) (Supplementary background: A special article by lawyer Lin Shang-Lun) From the Harvey and Lawsnote judgments, observing the copyright war in the AI era. Recently, a news story titled 'Car accident victim uses AI to win against three lawyers' sparked heated discussions on social media. Many legal professionals instinctively reacted: this is merely sensationalism. After all, a criminal injury case following a car accident, where the facts are clear and a prosecutor is involved, is a 'sure-win case'. Winning seems to prove nothing about AI's power; losing, however, would make headlines. However, if our insights stop here, we will miss the profound changes regarding the future of the legal industry that this case reveals. Carefully deconstructing the actions of the parties involved, they did not randomly throw facts at AI but instead followed a series of extremely 'correct' steps. This incident precisely predicts that in the wave of AI, the core value of legal professionals is shifting from 'executor' to 'orchestrator'. Viewpoint 1: Your free consultations are becoming AI's top fuel. The most critical step in this case was the prompt (instruction) that the party provided to AI, which was not a personal one-sided statement, but a conclusion and suggestion 'integrated from the free consultations of multiple lawyers'. This is a point worth alerting all legal professionals: in the age of AI, our pro bono professional output is being 'value-added' in unexpected ways. The most terrifying ability of generative AI lies in its high efficiency in integrating 'unstructured data'; meeting minutes, strategy notes, and factual statements can all be transformed into logically rigorous legal documents. However, the quality of AI's output entirely depends on the quality of the input, hence the saying 'Garbage In, Garbage Out'. A prompt that merely vaguely states 'I was hit, how should I sue?' yields vastly different results from one that integrates 'the analytical points, evidence strategies, and basis for claims from multiple lawyers'. In other words, your good-intentioned free consultation, your professional judgment and litigation strategy in your mind, have unwittingly become 'top fuel' for optimizing the other party's AI prompt. The party effectively uses your wisdom to hire a low-cost AI assistant that works year-round without rest. Therefore, I must candidly say that the business model of free consultations has already become ineffective. In the future, every instance of professional output will be a highly valuable 'prompt engineering'. Viewpoint 2: Evolving from legal craftsmen to 'case orchestrators'. The second highlight of this case is that the party demonstrated a clear 'layered processing' mindset. They understood how to decompose the lawsuit into 'factual statements' and 'basis for claims', and personally verified the legal provisions to avoid AI's 'hallucination'. What does this reveal? They understood the 'structure' of a legal case. This is the essence of legal professionalism and the core capability that AI cannot replace in the short term — becoming an 'orchestrator'. When the party comes with an injury case, our value is reflected in: Systematic categorization: We can immediately assess that this involves criminal injury and can file a civil lawsuit. Precise disassembly: We clearly understand the differences between the 'elements of crime' in criminal law and the 'basis for claims' in civil tort. Structural design: We know how a qualified lawsuit should lay out facts, cite legal provisions, and organize arguments. This knowledge system ingrained in our minds is the 'blueprint' for designing case handling processes. With AI's assistance, the role of lawyers is no longer that of a literal scribe but rather a strategic conductor. Our core work will transform into: Problem definition (Define): Transforming the client's chaotic narrative into precise legal points. Process design (Design): Planning the complete path from evidence organization, strategy formulation to document generation. Task delegation (Delegate): Assigning each designed element, delivering precise prompts to AI for efficient execution. Quality control (Verify): Reviewing AI outputs, verifying their accuracy, and injecting strategic adjustments and human empathy. Conclusion: The future belongs to legal professionals who know how to harness AI. This case is not a death knell for the legal profession but rather the overture to transformation. It tells us that the value of mere legal text work is rapidly diminishing. In the future, the competitiveness of the legal industry will no longer depend on who can memorize legal provisions better or who writes more eloquently. The true winners will be those who understand how to 'structure' their professional knowledge and skillfully orchestrate the powerful tool of AI through precise 'arrangements'. Mastering the 'orchestrator' mindset is not just for survival but to gain an irreplaceable absolute advantage in the next generation of the legal services market. Related reports: OpenAI valued at $300 billion with oversubscribed financing of $8.3 billion! Annual revenue of $13 billion and weekly active users exceeding 800 million. Figma's stock surged 250% on its first day of trading: Why are collaboration platforms becoming more indispensable in the AI era? 'Lawyer Lin Shang-Lun's special article) Did AI defeat three lawyers? Don't get it wrong, this is the prologue to 'Lawyers 2.0'." This article was first published in BlockTempo (the most influential blockchain news media).

#AI