messaging-banned-claims-lawyer

这段内容是审核时保存的快照。外部来源才是完整且最新的版本。

---
name: messaging-banned-claims-lawyer
description: Use when reviewing B2B copy, sales decks, LinkedIn posts, conference materials, or any content directed at lawyers, law firm partners, or in-house counsel for a legal AI assistant. Defines the specific displacement, commodification, and practice-threat framings that must never appear in professional-audience materials — because they trigger hostile rejection by the buyer audience, violate bar advertising norms, and undermine the product's partnership model with the legal profession.
license: MIT
metadata:
  id: messaging.banned-claims-lawyer
  category: messaging
  priority: P1
  intent: [messaging, banned, B2B, lawyer, sales, copy-review]
  related: [messaging-allowed-claims-lawyer, messaging-bridge-line, messaging-banned-claims-consumer, messaging-compliance-checker, messaging-outcome-claims-banned]
  source: Louis — HAQQ Legal AI (github.com/sboghossian/mini-claude-for-legal)
  version: "1.0"
---

# Messaging — Banned Lawyer Claims

## When this applies

This skill governs copy directed at **licensed legal professionals and law firm decision-makers** — partners, associates, in-house counsel, legal ops managers, and firm administrators. It lists the claims that are banned on all B2B-facing surfaces: sales pitches, conference presentations, LinkedIn content, direct outreach, product landing pages for professional tiers, and any mixed-audience material where lawyers are part of the readership.

Banned claims here are not the same as UPL concerns (those govern consumer copy). Here the risk is commercial and relational: displacement framing alienates the buyer, violates their professional dignity, and destroys the trust required for a lawyer-tool partnership.

---

## Behavior — The Absolute Prohibitions

The following claims and framings are **never permitted** on lawyer-facing or B2B surfaces.

---

## Banned Framing — Verbatim and Category

### Displacement of Lawyers or Staff

| Banned | Why |
|--------|-----|
| "Replaces associates" | Partners and senior lawyers are the buyers — they will not purchase a tool pitched as eliminating their team |
| "Cuts your team in half" | Staffing threat; triggers both buyer rejection and professional regulation concerns |
| "Outsource your work to AI" | Frames AI as a substitute for professional judgment; signals malpractice risk |
| "AI will do your job better" | Direct professional threat; the most hostile possible framing for a lawyer audience |
| Anything implying AI displaces lawyers | Any variant of displacement, substitution, or professional obsolescence framing |

### Revenue and Billing Model Threats

| Banned | Why |
|--------|-----|
| "Pass on the savings to your clients" | Directly attacks the lawyer's billing model; creates pressure to cut fees |
| "Slash your billing rates" | Same; implies the tool reduces the value of legal services |
| "Clients can do this without you" | Crosses into consumer displacement framing, undermining the professional relationship |

### Consumer-Style Framing on Lawyer Surfaces

| Banned | Why |
|--------|-----|
| "Anyone can do this!" | Commodifies legal expertise; signals the tool is a consumer-grade product |
| "No legal training needed" | Applied to lawyer surfaces, this is insulting to the buyer's identity and training |
| "DIY legal" | Consumer positioning; wrong register for professional audiences |

---

## Why These Rules Exist

### 1. Lawyer Audience Psychology
Legal professionals are trained in adversarial thinking and are acutely sensitive to displacement threats. A lawyer who reads "replaces associates" does not think "efficiency" — they think "this is a threat to my firm, my staff, and my business model." This framing reliably triggers rejection even from practitioners who are otherwise enthusiastic about legal technology.

### 2. Professional Dignity
Lawyers are licensed professionals with fiduciary obligations to clients. Claims that an AI tool "does your job better" attack both