星瀚卫新:AI 或对法律服务的交付方式、定价机制与客户期望产生深远影响,律所与律师将如何应对?

威科：目前超过90%的法律专业人士至少使用一种AI工具，近半数表示收入有所增长。您认为未来五年内，AI在法律服务商业模式中的哪些方面产生的影响最大？

卫新：我认为，未来五年内，AI 可能在法律服务商业模式的三个核心层面产生深远影响——服务交付方式、定价机制与客户期望。具体而言：

1.服务交付方式：从“人工主导”向“人机协同”跃迁

AI将深度嵌入案件管理全流程，实现服务标准化与规模化。合同审查、法规检索、类案推送、文书生成等重复性工作由AI自动完成，律师聚焦于策略制定、谈判博弈与复杂判断。律所将组建“AI+律师+流程管理”的新型团队结构，并推出模块化、可配置的智能服务产品。

2.定价机制：从“计时收费”向“成果导向”复合型计费方式转型

随着未来AI可能大幅提升律师工作效率，客户可能更倾向于拒绝为“低附加值劳动”支付高额费用。因此，律所不得不重构计费逻辑，推广固定费率、按件计价、成果分成等模式。AI成为支撑新型定价的技术基础——通过数据分析精确测算服务成本，量化案件复杂度与成果价值，使“按效果付费”具备可行性。

3.客户期望：从“被动响应”转向“主动预见”

企业客户不再满足于事后救济，而是要求律所提供风险预警、商业决策支持等前瞻性服务。AI赋能律所构建客户专属知识图谱，实时监控政策变动、司法趋势与履约异常，主动推送合规建议或争议苗头。客户期待更透明的服务过程（如AI使用说明、工时分解报告）和可量化的成效评估，推动法律服务向产品化、可视化、可审计方向发展。

综上，AI正驱动法律服务从传统手工业模式迈向智能化、产品化、客户中心化的新阶段。

威科：在提升法律团队 AI 素养方面，您认为哪些策略最为有效？

卫新：我认为提升法律团队的AI素养不仅是技术适应问题，更是组织战略、人才发展与专业能力重构的系统工程。其中最重要有两个策略：

1.平衡好个体自由和组织整体利益

律师事务所推动数字化的过程中，常面临律师个体工作习惯与组织统一标准之间的冲突。部分资深律师倾向于保留个人工作模式，拒绝使用统一系统，造成数据孤岛。对此，律所需要在尊重专业自主性的前提下，通过制度设计实现个体自由与组织利益的动态平衡。首先，要提供充分的技术力量帮助资深律师降低知识管理的成本，同时，要让资深律师的隐形知识和经验数字化之后有独立性，而不是无差别的为组织利用。同时为知识和经验的交流、共享、产品化提供激励机制和资源倾斜。

2.建立“投资思维”的文化

应当在组织内建立采用AI工具、学习AI技能是一种自我投资的意识，克服成本效用对比的“消费思维”。资深律师只有认识到投资并不一定有回报，投资应着眼未来和长期主义，才能对当下的技术具有包容性，并克服传统的思维方式和习惯。

威科：随着AI对速度与成本效益的提升，客户的期望经历了何种变化？法律组织应如何应对才能维持客户信任与竞争优势？

卫新：律师事务所对外展现拥抱新技术的积极形象，与客户提出更苛刻的要求可能会产生关联性。律所越强调大范围的应用AI工具，会引发客户自然的进一步要求提高服务效率、减少账单时间、强调资深律师的实质介入。但律所不能因为这种要求提升，而采取拒绝新技术、保守排斥AI的策略，因为客户已经默认法律服务行业应当拥抱AI。

当下经常出现一种现象，就是客户会比较一些通用的大模型对法律问题的解答，与律师答复之间的差异。律师的权威正在面临挑战，你不得不花费时间向客户解释为什么AI提出的一些建议不应该在现实中被采纳，而律师的方案已经充分考虑了这些选项。面对客户更高的期望，律师事务所要接纳并理解这种变化。你必须重塑你的工作流和交付模式，你必须让反馈速度变得更快，同时，你需要让文本和答复更有“人味”和更定制化。

威科：超过一半的本报告受访者预计法律研究、文档自动化和合同起草等任务将转向ALSP（替代性法律服务提供商），传统律所应如何定位自己以保持竞争力？

卫新：传统律所应当将其掌握的行业经验、实践知识、隐性经验与信息技术的结合，形成有壁垒的“数据资产”，这是AI时代保持竞争力的关键。

真的智能化、差异化竞争，不在于是否购买了更贵的AI平台额度，部署了算力更强、参数更多的本地基座大模型，而在于谁能构建独特、高质量的本地化数据资产。这种资产不是简单的电子文档堆砌，而是将律师在长期执业中形成的实务经验、办案思维逻辑等“隐性知识”，通过技术手段实现结构化沉淀。要实现这一目标，必须打破“技术归技术、业务归业务”的割裂状态，建立“法律+技术”的双轮驱动机制。

具体而言，应由资深律师作为内容主导者，梳理高频场景中有价值的知识要素，并以自然语言罗列工作流程；同时由技术专家从技术上予以实现，包括但不限于协助设计数据标注体系、开发知识图谱模型，并嵌入日常作业流程中实现自动采集与迭代更新。此类深度融合的成果，难以被外部通用模型复制，构成律所可持续的技术护城河。

威科：您认为律师事务所和法务部门是否需要重塑招聘策略，以吸引精通技术的法律人才？如果是的话，您认为应如何操作？

卫新：当下最宝贵的人才是既拥有法律经验、又精通技术的人才，我们需要在人才招募和培养上都有针对性的变革。可以在组织内建立法律科技的社团或学习小组，让最有热情的年轻人成为社团的负责人，并由组织给予经费的支持、培训机会、引入外部技术专家的辅导和支持，从而发掘和培养既有组织内的法律+技术的复合型人才。资助法学院的科技社团和在法学院组织一些科技大赛，从而发现优秀的年轻人也是一个有效的策略。

上海星瀚律师事务所首席运营官宋佳，权益合伙人李凤翔，以及蔡成思律师等亦参与调研支持工作。无论您是企业代表，还是律师同行，或是科技公司代表、高校与研究机构代表等，如您有意愿就相关话题与我们进一步探讨，欢迎添加我们团队负责人宋佳的微信。

Q1: With over 90% of legal professionals now using at least one AI tool and nearly half reporting revenue increases, where do you envision AI having the largest impact on the business model of legal services over the next five years?

WEI Xin:I believe that in the next five years, AI will exert a profound influence on three core dimensions of the legal services business model: service delivery, pricing mechanisms, and client expectations. Specifically:

1.Service Delivery: A Shift from “Human-Led” to “Human–AI Collaboration”

AI will be deeply integrated into the entire case‑management workflow, enabling the standardization and scaling of legal services. Repetitive and labor‑intensive tasks—such as contract review, statutory and case research, similar‑case recommendations, and document drafting—will increasingly be automated by AI. Lawyers will thereby be able to focus on higher‑value activities such as strategic planning, negotiation, and complex legal judgment. Law firms will adopt new team structures built on “AI + lawyers + process management,” and introduce modular, configurable intelligent service products.

2.Pricing Mechanisms: A Transition from Hourly Billing to Outcome‑Oriented Hybrid Models

As AI significantly enhances lawyer productivity, clients will become less willing to pay premium fees for low‑value, routine work. Consequently, law firms will need to redesign their pricing logic and expand the use of fixed fees, per‑matter pricing, success‑based fees, and other hybrid models. AI will serve as the technical foundation enabling these new pricing mechanisms—by supporting accurate cost estimation, quantifying case complexity, and assessing outcome value—thus making “pay‑for‑results” models operationally feasible.

3.Client Expectations: From “Reactive Response” to “Proactive Insight”

Corporate clients are no longer satisfied with post‑event remedies; they increasingly expect proactive risk alerts and business‑oriented strategic guidance from the law firm. AI empowers law firms to build client‑specific knowledge graphs, monitor regulatory developments, judicial trends, and contract‑performance anomalies in real time, and proactively deliver compliance recommendations or early warnings of potential disputes. Clients also expect greater transparency in the service process—such as disclosures on how AI is used, breakdowns of billable hours, and measurable performance metrics—driving the evolution of legal services toward more productized, visualized, and auditable models. 

In summary, AI is propelling the legal services industry from a traditional, artisan‑based model toward a new era characterized by intelligent systems, productized delivery, and client‑centric service structures.

Q2: What strategies have you seen prove most effective in fostering AI literacy within legal teams?

WEI Xin: I believe that enhancing AI literacy within legal teams is not merely a matter of technological adaptation, but rather a systemic endeavor encompassing organizational strategy, talent development, and the reconfiguration of professional capabilities. Among the various strategies, two stand out as particularly critical.

1.Balancing Individual Autonomy with Organizational Interests

In advancing digital transformation, law firms often encounter tension between individual working habits and organizational standardization. Senior lawyers, in particular, may resist adopting unified systems in favor of preserving their personal workflows, resulting in data silos. To address this, law firms must strike a dynamic balance—respecting professional autonomy while aligning individual behavior with collective goals through thoughtful institutional design.

This requires first providing robust technical support to reduce the overhead of knowledge management for senior lawyers. At the same time, the firm should ensure that the digitized forms of tacit expertise and experiential wisdom from senior lawyers retain a degree of individual ownership, rather than being indiscriminately absorbed into organizational assets. Furthermore, incentive mechanisms and resource allocation should be structured to encourage knowledge sharing, collaboration, and the productization of legal insights.

2.Cultivating a Culture of “Investment Thinking”

Firms should foster an internal mindset that adopting AI tools and learning AI-related skills is a form of personal investment rather than consumption. Senior lawyers need to move beyond a short‑term cost‑benefit mindset. Only when they recognize that true investment does not always generate immediate returns and that its value often lies in long‑term gains can they develop tolerance for emerging technologies and overcome entrenched habits and traditional working methods. 

Q3: As AI improves speed and cost-efficiency, how are client expectations evolving—and how should legal organizations respond to maintain trust and competitive advantage?

WEI Xin: Law firms’ efforts to project a positive image of embracing new technologies externally may become associated with clients imposing more demanding expectations. The more a firm emphasizes the broad application of AI tools, the more it may naturally prompt clients to further require higher service efficiency, reduced billable hours, and greater substantive involvement from senior lawyers. However, law firms cannot respond to these heightened expectations by rejecting new technologies or taking a conservative, exclusionary stance toward AI, because clients already assume that the legal services industry should embrace AI. 

A common phenomenon today is that clients compare the answers provided by general‑purpose large models on legal questions with the responses given by lawyers. The authority of lawyers is being challenged, and you are compelled to spend time explaining to clients why certain suggestions proposed by AI should not be adopted in practice, and why the lawyer’s solution has already fully considered those options.

In the face of rising client expectations, law firms must accept and understand this shift. You must redesign your workflows and delivery models, accelerate your response times, and at the same time, ensure that your written work and answers feel more “human” and more customized.

Q4: As over half of respondents anticipate tasks like legal research, document automation, and contract drafting shifting to ALSPs, how should “traditional” firms position themselves to remain competitive?

WEI Xin:Traditional law firms should integrate their accumulated industry experience, practical knowledge, and tacit expertise with information technology to form defensible “data assets,” which are the key to maintaining competitiveness in the AI era.

Genuine intelligent and differentiated competitiveness does not lie in whether a firm purchases a more expensive AI platform quota or deploys a more powerful, larger‑parameter on‑premises base model, but in who can build unique, high‑quality, localized data assets. Such assets are not a simple aggregation of electronic documents; rather, they are the structured consolidation—enabled by technology—of lawyers’ tacit knowledge formed through long‑term practice, including their practical experience and case‑handling thought processes.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to break the separation between “technology belongs to the tech team” and “business belongs to the legal team,” and instead establish a dual‑engine mechanism combining “legal expertise + technological capability.” Specifically, senior lawyers should act as content owners, identifying and organizing valuable knowledge elements in high‑frequency scenarios and enumerating workflow steps in natural language. Meanwhile, technical experts should implement these requirements technically, including but not limited to assisting in the design of data‑labeling systems, developing knowledge‑graph models, and embedding them into daily workflows to enable automatic data collection and iterative updates.

This type of deep integration produces outcomes that cannot be easily replicated by external general models, forming a sustainable technological moat for law firms.

Q5: Do you think that law firms and legal departments need to reshape their hiring strategies to attract tech-savvy legal talent? How?

WEI Xin:The most valuable talent today is those who possess both legal experience and technological expertise, and we need targeted reforms in both recruitment and talent development. Organizations may establish legal‑technology clubs or study groups internally, appointing the most passionate young professionals as leaders, and providing them with institutional support such as funding, training opportunities, and access to external technical experts for guidance. This will help identify and cultivate compound talents within the organization who combine legal knowledge with technological capability.

Supporting technology clubs in law schools and organizing technology competitions within law schools to identify outstanding young individuals is also an effective strategy.

关于星瀚

上海星瀚律师事务所定位为面向未来的创新型律所，能够为客户提供一站式、综合性的法律解决方案。连续八年蝉联“上海市优秀律师事务所”，并被授予“上海市十佳律师事务所”称号；同时获评全国公共法律服务先进集体、上海市文明单位、上海司法行政工作先进集体、上海市青年文明号、上海市数字化律师事务所创新先锋等荣誉；也得到《钱伯斯》《The Legal 500》M《Asian Legal Business （ALB）》《China Business Law Awards》等国际媒体的认可。

星瀚始终将“热爱法律的技术派”作为核心文化，通过系统性投入与生态化布局，推动法律与科技的深度融合，坚定投身数智化变革浪潮。

星瀚自2010年成立时起，就设有 IT 部门，致力于打造内部OA系统、共享平台、提效工具等，并在近年结合 AI 技术，深化业务管理、财务管理、客户管理、人才管理等工作的智能化，结合与大厂、科技公司进行战略合作、定制化开发，采买垂类场景下的法律科技产品等，全方位推进星瀚组织内部的提效与数智化转型。与此同时，以星瀚“黑科技社团”为载体，提供培训、workshop等形式各异的交流场景，结合法律科技主题的所内实践比赛，充分营造拥抱 AI 的文化、激发星瀚同事们的创新动能。

星瀚在数据法律服务、AI 法律服务方面也具有专长。一方面，星瀚围绕企业如何合理使用AI、企业员工应用 AI 的规范性要求、AI生成作品的知识产权等话题，为大量企业提供培训、指引与咨询顾问服务；另一方面，星瀚在为人工智能等科技型企业提供法律服务方面也具备深厚的专业积累和丰富的代表案例，专业能力覆盖知识产权、劳动人事、投融资并购、股权激励、争议解决等各方面。

如今，星瀚在通过法律与科技相结合，为客户提供“法律×科技”专业服务方面进行诸多探索，所涉场景包括：企业内控与反舞弊、隐私政策更新、创作过程确权、舆情管理、营销合规管理。

星瀚的数智化实践是对“创新驱动长期价值”的践行，期待能与更多伙伴共创、共赢。

作者介绍

卫新 高级合伙人 业务领域：商业诉讼、娱乐体育

扫描或识别左侧二维码

查看详细介绍