Most lists of legal prompts ask the AI to "find case law on" an issue. That's the request behind the fake citations lawyers have been sanctioned for filing. These 51 prompts work differently. They give the AI the jobs it does well: spotting issues, planning research, quoting and organising documents you paste in, producing first drafts to review, and explaining advice in plain English. Every research prompt tells the model never to invent an authority, to tag anything that needs checking, and to leave the verification to you in a primary source.
The pack is written for solicitors, attorneys, in-house counsel, paralegals and legal assistants. It has seven sections: research planning, contract review and redlining, first drafts, litigation, client communication, document summaries, and practice management. Prompts that depend on local law take a {{JURISDICTION}} variable, and US and UK terms appear side by side (discovery and disclosure, deposition and witness statement).
Each prompt sets a role, asks for your inputs as {{VARIABLES}}, states its rules and specifies the output, so it behaves the same in ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. The prompts assume anonymised facts. Four include a worked example using fictional matters, so you can judge the output before you use it.
Legal Research Planning (Not Answers)
These prompts help you plan research, not outsource it. They spot issues in anonymised facts, build search strategies, break statutes you paste into elements, and brief judgments you paste with pinpoints. Every one tells the AI not to invent authorities and to tag anything that needs checking. One prompt audits the citations in any draft, so you know exactly what to pull before you file.
Best for: Scoping a new matter and finding the questions to ask the client
You are a senior associate helping me scope a new matter before any research starts. Your job is to spot issues, not to answer them.
Jurisdiction: {{JURISDICTION}}
Practice area: {{PRACTICE_AREA}}
Facts: {{MATTER_FACTS}}
The facts are anonymised (Client A, Company B). Don't ask for names or identifying details.
Do this:
1. Issues: list every legal issue the facts raise, from most to least significant. For each, give one sentence on why the facts trigger it.
2. Facts that matter: for each issue, name the facts that cut for and against our client, quoting my wording.
3. Missing facts: list the questions I must ask the client or find in documents before the issue can be assessed. Mark any that are time-critical (limitation periods, notice deadlines, preservation duties) as URGENT.
4. Possible claims and defences, by name only, with no prediction of outcome.
5. Research questions: turn each issue into a precise question I can research.
Never invent or guess a case name, citation, statute section, rule number or quotation. If you mention any authority, tag it [VERIFY]; I will check every citation in a primary source before relying on it. Don't state what the law is; frame everything as questions to confirm.
Output as numbered sections with a table for steps 1 and 2.
Fill in: JURISDICTION PRACTICE_AREA MATTER_FACTS
Run this first on a new file, with names replaced by labels. Treat every item as a lead to check, never as a conclusion.
Example output · Claude (example written by The Prompt Index)
Sample inputs (fictional)
- JURISDICTION: New York (US)
- PRACTICE_AREA: Employment
- MATTER_FACTS: Client A was a regional sales manager at Company B (about 300 employees) for six years. Her written commission plan says commissions are "earned when the customer is invoiced." On 3 March she emailed HR saying Q4 commissions of about $41,000 on invoiced deals had not been paid. On 18 March she was told her role was "eliminated in a restructure." No one else on her team was let go. On 20 March she received a separation agreement offering eight weeks' pay in exchange for a general release, to be signed within 21 days. Her employment agreement has a 12-month non-compete and a non-solicit of customers. She has started talking to a competitor. She still has her company laptop.
1. Issues (most to least significant)
| # | Issue | Why the facts trigger it |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Unpaid commissions | The plan ties "earned" to invoicing, and A says about $41,000 was invoiced in Q4 but unpaid. |
| 2 | Retaliation for the pay complaint | Termination came 15 days after her written complaint, and only her role was "eliminated". |
| 3 | The separation agreement and release | Signing could release issues 1 and 2. The 21-day window creates time pressure. |
| 4 | Enforceability of the non-compete and non-solicit | She is talking to a competitor, so the restrictions will matter immediately. |
| 5 | Return of company property and data | She still has the laptop, which raises preservation and misuse risk on both sides. |
2. Facts that matter
| Issue | For Client A | Against Client A |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | "earned when the customer is invoiced"; her written email of 3 March | Plan may have clawback, discretion or "employed on payment date" terms we haven't seen |
| 2 | Timing (15 days); "no one else on her team was let go" | Company may have restructuring documents that predate 3 March |
| 3 | Eight weeks' pay is offered without conditions beyond the release | A release may be enforceable once signed |
| 4 | Role eliminated by the employer, not a resignation | She signed the agreement; the restriction covers customers she knows |
| 5 | Nothing yet | Possession of the laptop after termination |
3. Missing facts
- URGENT: the date the 21-day signing window ends, and whether the agreement gives a revocation period.
- URGENT: preservation. A must not delete, copy or access anything on the company laptop. Arrange its return through counsel and document it. Separately, she should keep her own records of the commission complaint (the 3 March email) without taking company data.
- URGENT: the time limits for any wage, retaliation or contract claim and for any agency filing in this jurisdiction. Confirm them now.
- The full commission plan, including amendments, discretion and clawback language.
- Invoices or CRM records for the Q4 deals.
- Any restructuring documents, headcount plans or emails about her role before 3 March.
- Whether the non-compete has a choice-of-law clause or garden-leave pay.
- Her new prospective role: same customers? same territory?
4. Possible claims and defences (by name only)
Claims: unpaid wages or commissions (statutory and contract); retaliation for a wage complaint; breach of contract (the commission plan).
Company's likely defences: legitimate restructuring; commissions not "earned" under other plan terms; release if she signs; enforcement of the restrictive covenants.
5. Research questions
1. Under New York law, are commissions "earned when invoiced" treated as wages, and what remedies follow if unpaid? [VERIFY]
2. What must an employee show to establish retaliation for an internal pay complaint, and how much weight does timing carry? [VERIFY]
3. What conditions, if any, must a release of wage or retaliation claims meet to be enforceable? [VERIFY]
4. What is the current test for enforcing an employee non-compete in this state, and has any recent legislation changed it? [VERIFY]
5. What are the limitation periods for each potential claim? [VERIFY]
No authorities are named above. Every legal point is a question to confirm in primary sources before advising Client A.
Best for: Turning a vague question into a structured search plan
Act as a law librarian and research attorney building a research plan I will carry out myself in a legal research service.
Research question: {{RESEARCH_QUESTION}}
Jurisdiction and court level: {{JURISDICTION}}
Deadline and depth needed (quick answer, memo, brief): {{DEPTH_NEEDED}}
Produce:
1. Sub-questions: break the question into the smaller questions a court would have to answer, in logical order.
2. Source hierarchy: which types of source to check, in order (constitution or statute, regulations or rules, binding appellate authority, persuasive authority, secondary sources), and why each matters here.
3. Search terms: for each sub-question, five to eight search strings, including synonyms, terms of art and Boolean or proximity versions.
4. Secondary sources to start from: describe the kinds (practice treatise, annotated code, practice guide, bar journal) rather than naming titles you aren't sure of.
5. Stopping rule: how I'll know I've searched enough for the depth requested.
6. Traps: common research mistakes for this kind of question (superseded statutes, unpublished decisions, splits between courts).
Never invent or guess a case name, citation, statute section, rule number or quotation. If you mention any authority, tag it [VERIFY]; I will check every citation in a primary source before relying on it. This plan replaces guessing at answers; it is not itself research.
Fill in: RESEARCH_QUESTION JURISDICTION DEPTH_NEEDED
Use it before you open Westlaw, Lexis, vLex or the official sources, then work through the search strings in order.
Best for: Turning a statute or rule into an elements checklist
You are a careful legal analyst. I will paste the exact text of a statute, regulation or court rule. Work only from that text.
Provision text (verbatim): {{PROVISION_TEXT}}
Jurisdiction: {{JURISDICTION}}
What I need to know: {{QUESTION}}
Do this:
1. Elements: list every element or condition that must be satisfied, numbered, each quoting the words of the provision it comes from.
2. Defined terms: list words that look defined or technical, and tell me to find their definitions (in the definitions section, an interpretation act, or case law) rather than guessing a meaning.
3. Exceptions, carve-outs and cross-references, quoted, with what each changes.
4. Ambiguities: phrases a court could read two ways, with both readings stated neutrally.
5. Checklist: a yes/no checklist I can run against my facts for each element.
6. What to verify: whether this is the current in-force version, any amendments, commencement dates and interpretive authority I should look for.
Use only the pasted text. Never invent or guess a case name, citation, statute section, rule number or quotation. If you mention any authority, tag it [VERIFY]; I will check every citation in a primary source before relying on it.
Fill in: PROVISION_TEXT JURISDICTION QUESTION
Paste the provision from an official source and include its definitions section if it has one.
Best for: Briefing a judgment accurately with pinpoints
You are a legal research assistant writing a case note for a busy partner. Use only the judgment text I paste; if something isn't in it, say so.
Judgment text (or the relevant extracts, with paragraph or page numbers): {{JUDGMENT_TEXT}}
Why I'm reading it: {{MY_ISSUE}}
Write the note in this structure:
1. Court, date and procedural posture, exactly as stated in the text.
2. Material facts (no more than eight bullets).
3. Issue(s) the court decided.
4. Holding, and the reasoning behind it, with a pinpoint (paragraph or page) for every point.
5. Key passages: up to three short verbatim quotations, each with a pinpoint, copied exactly.
6. Dicta, concurrences and dissents, kept separate from the holding.
7. Relevance to my issue: how it helps, how it hurts, and how the other side might distinguish it.
8. Citator check: remind me to check subsequent treatment (appealed, overruled, distinguished) in a citator before relying on it.
Don't add facts. Mark any inference as [INFERENCE]. Never invent or guess a case name, citation, statute section, rule number or quotation. If you mention any authority, tag it [VERIFY]; I will check every citation in a primary source before relying on it.
Fill in: JUDGMENT_TEXT MY_ISSUE
Paste the judgment from an official or subscription source. For long judgments, paste the sections that matter with their paragraph numbers.
Best for: Building a rule statement for a memo or brief
Act as an appellate research attorney. I will paste extracts from several decisions. Synthesise the rule they establish, using only what I paste.
Decisions (each with name, court, date and extracts with pinpoints): {{CASE_EXTRACTS}}
The question the rule must answer: {{QUESTION}}
Jurisdiction: {{JURISDICTION}}
Do this:
1. Comparison table: for each decision, the key facts, the outcome, the reasoning in one sentence, and its court level (binding or persuasive for my forum).
2. Synthesised rule: one paragraph stating the rule as the cases together apply it, with pinpoints for every component.
3. Factors: the facts the courts treated as decisive, and which way each pushed.
4. Tensions: any conflict between the cases, and whether court level or date resolves it.
5. Gaps: questions the extracts don't answer, so I know what to research next.
6. Limits: where the synthesis rests on one case or on dicta.
Never invent or guess a case name, citation, statute section, rule number or quotation. If you mention any authority, tag it [VERIFY]; I will check every citation in a primary source before relying on it. Don't bring in any case I haven't pasted.
Fill in: CASE_EXTRACTS QUESTION JURISDICTION
Works best with three to eight decisions. Give each its full name and court so the binding/persuasive split is right.
Best for: Finding weaknesses in an argument before filing or sending
You are experienced opposing counsel. Your job is to find every weakness in my argument before a judge or the other side does.
My argument (as drafted): {{MY_ARGUMENT}}
Key facts and the record available: {{KEY_FACTS}}
Forum and jurisdiction: {{JURISDICTION}}
Do this:
1. The three strongest counter-arguments, each with the reasoning a skilled opponent would use and what in my facts they would exploit.
2. Logic gaps: steps in my argument that are asserted rather than supported.
3. Factual vulnerabilities: facts I rely on that may be disputed or are not yet in evidence.
4. Authority risks: where my argument depends on an authority that might be distinguished, limited or out of date. Describe the risk; don't name new authorities from memory.
5. Rebuttals: for each counter-argument, the best reply available on my facts, and what I'd need to find to make it stronger.
6. Overall: rank my points strongest to weakest and tell me which to lead with or drop.
Never invent or guess a case name, citation, statute section, rule number or quotation. If you mention any authority, tag it [VERIFY]; I will check every citation in a primary source before relying on it. Be blunt; a soft review is no use to me.
Fill in: MY_ARGUMENT KEY_FACTS JURISDICTION
Paste the argument section of a brief, letter or memo. Run it again after you revise.
Best for: Building a cite-check list before filing
You are a cite-checker reviewing a draft brief, memo or letter before it is filed or sent. You cannot confirm whether any authority exists or says what the draft claims, and you must not try. Your job is to build my verification list.
Draft text: {{DRAFT_TEXT}}
Citation style required (Bluebook, OSCOLA, court rules, firm style): {{CITATION_STYLE}}
Do this:
1. Extract every authority cited (cases, statutes, rules, regulations, secondary sources) into a table: citation exactly as written, the proposition the draft uses it for, any quotation attributed to it, and pinpoint given (or "NONE").
2. Flag risk: mark HIGH any citation with no pinpoint, a quotation, an unusually precise proposition, or a format that looks malformed or inconsistent. Explain each flag in a few words.
3. Unsupported propositions: list statements of law in the draft that cite nothing.
4. Format check against the style named, as suggestions only.
5. Verification steps: for each row, what to pull and confirm (the full text, the quotation, the pinpoint, subsequent treatment in a citator).
Never add, correct or complete a citation from memory, and do not mark anything as verified. Every row stays "TO CHECK" until I confirm it in a primary source.
Fill in: DRAFT_TEXT CITATION_STYLE
Run this on every draft that cites authority, especially anything partly written with AI or by a new team member. Then pull each source yourself.
Contract Review & Redlining
Paste the contract text and say which side you act for. These prompts abstract key terms, flag risks for your client, compare the draft with your own playbook, and prepare markup wording with fallbacks. Others check defined terms and cross-references, build an obligations register after signing, and organise your reply to the other side's markup. Contract wording is always quoted, so you can check every point against the source.
Best for: Abstracting a contract for the file or a handover
You are a contracts paralegal preparing a key-terms abstract for the file. Work only from the contract text I paste.
Contract text: {{CONTRACT_TEXT}}
Our client is: {{OUR_SIDE}}
Terms the team cares about most: {{PRIORITY_TERMS}}
Produce a table with these rows, each giving the clause number, a short summary and the exact key wording quoted:
- Parties and their roles; effective date; term and renewal (including auto-renewal and notice periods)
- Price, payment terms, late payment, price changes
- Scope of services or goods; acceptance
- Termination rights (for convenience, for cause, cure periods)
- Liability caps, exclusions, indemnities
- Confidentiality, data protection, intellectual property
- Assignment, change of control, subcontracting
- Governing law, jurisdiction, dispute resolution
- Notices (method and address clause)
- Any term listed in my priority terms
Then list: terms that are missing or blank, schedules or documents referred to but not attached, and any clause you could not summarise without guessing. If a row has no matching clause, write "NOT FOUND", never a presumed standard term.
Fill in: CONTRACT_TEXT OUR_SIDE PRIORITY_TERMS
Remove party names and pricing you can't share before pasting, or use a tool your firm has approved for client documents.
Best for: First-pass risk review of a contract for one party
Act as a senior commercial lawyer reviewing a contract for one party only. Flag what puts my client at risk and explain why in practical terms.
Contract text: {{CONTRACT_TEXT}}
We act for: {{OUR_SIDE}}
The deal in one paragraph (value, purpose, what matters commercially): {{DEAL_CONTEXT}}
Governing law: {{JURISDICTION}}
For each issue, give a row in a table:
- Clause number and the exact words that cause the risk (quoted)
- Risk to my client in plain terms (what could go wrong, how it would play out)
- Severity: High (could cost the deal's value or create open-ended exposure), Medium, or Low, with one line of reasoning
- Suggested position (the change to ask for), described rather than redrafted
After the table:
1. One-sided or unusual terms that need a client decision, not just a lawyer's view.
2. Protections that are missing for my client's side.
3. Points that depend on governing-law rules I should check (for example, whether a limitation or exclusion is enforceable). Tag these [CHECK LAW] rather than stating the rule.
Don't call anything "market standard" unless I give you a playbook to compare against.
Fill in: CONTRACT_TEXT OUR_SIDE DEAL_CONTEXT JURISDICTION
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. State clearly which side you act for. For a comparison with your firm's positions, use the Playbook prompt next.
Example output · Claude (example written by The Prompt Index)
Sample inputs (fictional)
- CONTRACT_TEXT (extracts): "4.2 Supplier may vary the Fees on 30 days' notice." "7.1 Supplier's total liability under this Agreement shall not exceed the Fees paid in the 3 months preceding the claim." "7.3 Supplier shall have no liability for loss of data howsoever arising." "9.1 Either party may terminate on 90 days' notice. 9.3 On termination Supplier shall make Customer Data available for 14 days, after which it may be deleted." "11.2 Supplier may assign or subcontract this Agreement without consent." "12.4 This Agreement renews automatically for successive 24-month terms unless terminated on 6 months' notice before renewal."
- OUR_SIDE: Company B, the customer (a group of 14 dental practices)
- DEAL_CONTEXT: Patient booking and records software, about £60,000 a year, 3-year initial term. Business-critical: if bookings stop, clinics stop.
- JURISDICTION: England and Wales
| Clause | Words causing the risk | Risk to Company B | Severity | Suggested position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.3 | "no liability for loss of data howsoever arising" | Patient records are the core of the service. If the supplier loses them, Company B bears the loss, including any regulatory consequences. | High: the main thing the service holds is excluded entirely | Make the supplier liable for data loss caused by its breach, backed by backup and restoration obligations |
| 7.1 | "Fees paid in the 3 months preceding the claim" | The cap is about £15,000 on a £60,000-a-year deal, and could be lower early in the term or after a fee dispute. A serious outage would cost more than that. | High | A cap linked to annual fees (or a fixed sum), with carve-outs for data protection breaches and confidentiality |
| 9.3 | "available for 14 days, after which it may be deleted" | 14 days is too short to migrate patient records, and nothing specifies the format. | High | A longer exit period, a stated export format, assistance at agreed rates, and certified deletion only after confirmed transfer |
| 12.4 | "successive 24-month terms… 6 months' notice" | Missing a single date locks Company B in for two more years. | Medium | 12-month renewals and 90 days' notice, plus a reminder obligation on the supplier |
| 4.2 | "may vary the Fees on 30 days' notice" | Fees could rise at any time during the 3-year commitment. | Medium | Fees fixed for the initial term, then increases capped or linked to an index, with a right to terminate if they rise |
| 11.2 | "assign or subcontract… without consent" | Patient data could pass to an unknown party. | Medium | Consent for assignment; subcontractors processing personal data only with notice and equivalent obligations |
| 9.1 | "Either party may terminate on 90 days' notice" | The supplier can walk away from a business-critical service at short notice. | Medium | Supplier termination for convenience removed or extended, with transition support |
1. Client decisions: whether the clinics accept any cap below a year's fees, and how much exit cost they will pay for.
2. Missing protections: service levels and service credits for availability; data protection terms (processor obligations, security, breach notification); backup and disaster recovery; a business continuity plan.
3. Points to check under the governing law: whether the 7.3 exclusion and the 7.1 cap would pass any reasonableness test that applies to these standard terms [CHECK LAW]; what data protection law requires in a contract with a processor of health data [CHECK LAW].
Nothing above is described as "market standard": no playbook was provided.
Best for: Checking third-party paper against your firm's negotiation positions
You are a contract manager checking an incoming contract against our negotiation playbook. The playbook is the standard; don't substitute your own views.
Our playbook (preferred position, acceptable fallback, and walk-away for each topic): {{PLAYBOOK}}
Contract text received: {{CONTRACT_TEXT}}
We are: {{OUR_SIDE}}
Do this:
1. Compliance table: one row per playbook topic, with the contract clause number, the contract wording quoted, and a status of MATCHES PREFERRED, WITHIN FALLBACK, OUTSIDE FALLBACK, or NOT ADDRESSED.
2. For every OUTSIDE FALLBACK row, the gap in one sentence and the playbook position to propose.
3. Contract terms not covered by the playbook at all, listed separately for a lawyer to decide.
4. Escalation list: the rows that need partner or client sign-off under the playbook, in priority order.
5. Summary for the deal team in five bullets or fewer.
Quote contract wording exactly. If a clause could be read as matching or not, mark it UNCLEAR and explain both readings. Don't soften a status to make the contract look closer to the playbook than it is.
Fill in: PLAYBOOK CONTRACT_TEXT OUR_SIDE
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. Paste your playbook as a simple list or table. A short playbook of 10-15 topics works better than a long policy document.
Best for: Preparing markup wording and fallbacks for one clause
Act as a negotiating lawyer preparing a markup of one clause. Draft wording I can paste into a redline, plus fallbacks for the next round.
Clause as drafted by the other side (verbatim): {{CLAUSE_TEXT}}
We act for: {{OUR_SIDE}}
What we need this clause to achieve: {{OUR_GOAL}}
Governing law: {{JURISDICTION}}
Produce:
1. Issues: what's wrong with the clause for my client, in no more than five bullets.
2. Opening markup: the full revised clause, with deletions shown as [DELETE: …] and insertions as [INSERT: …], so I can transfer them to a redline.
3. Explanatory comment for the other side: two to four sentences, professional and non-combative, explaining the change in commercial terms.
4. Fallback 1 and Fallback 2: progressively closer to their draft, each as full clause wording with a note of what we give up.
5. Drafting checks: defined terms used, cross-references, and anything that depends on law in the governing jurisdiction, tagged [CHECK LAW].
Keep the drafting style consistent with the original clause (numbering, defined-term capitals, "shall" or "must"). Don't introduce new defined terms without listing them.
Fill in: CLAUSE_TEXT OUR_SIDE OUR_GOAL JURISDICTION
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. Use one clause per run. Paste the definitions the clause relies on so the markup stays consistent.
Best for: Catching drafting errors before signing
You are a proofreading lawyer doing a technical consistency check on a near-final contract. Ignore commercial points; find drafting errors.
Contract text (complete, including schedules if possible): {{CONTRACT_TEXT}}
Drafting conventions we follow (for example, defined terms in capitals, "shall" for obligations): {{HOUSE_STYLE}}
Check and report:
1. Defined terms: terms defined but never used; terms used with capitals but never defined; terms defined twice or differently; terms used inconsistently (for example, "Services" and "the Service").
2. Cross-references: every "clause X", "Schedule Y" or "paragraph Z" reference, and whether the target exists and appears to be the intended provision. Flag likely numbering errors.
3. Parties: inconsistent party names or roles.
4. Dates, periods and numbers: inconsistent notice periods, figures given in words and numerals that don't match, currencies not stated.
5. Conflicts: provisions that appear to contradict each other, quoted side by side, and whether an order-of-precedence clause resolves them.
6. Incomplete text: blanks, square-bracketed options, drafting notes, or comments left in.
Output a numbered issues list with clause references and the exact text, followed by a short list of the five most important fixes.
Fill in: CONTRACT_TEXT HOUSE_STYLE
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. Run it on the execution version before signing. Long contracts may need pasting in two halves; keep the definitions clause in both.
Best for: Building a post-signing obligations and renewal tracker
Act as a contract administrator building an obligations register so nothing is missed after signing.
Contract text: {{CONTRACT_TEXT}}
Our client is: {{OUR_SIDE}}
Signature or effective date: {{START_DATE}}
Produce a table with one row per obligation, right or deadline:
- Clause number and the triggering words, quoted
- Who must act (us, them, either)
- What must be done
- Deadline or trigger, and the calculated date where the contract allows it (show how you counted; flag business-day versus calendar-day ambiguity)
- Notice formalities (written, method, address, recipient), from the notices clause
- Consequence of missing it (termination right, price change, loss of a right)
Then list separately:
1. Recurring obligations (reports, reviews, payments) with their frequency.
2. Renewal and termination windows, with the last day to give notice.
3. Rights my client could lose by doing nothing (for example, acceptance deemed after a period).
4. Anything you couldn't date because the trigger is uncertain.
Don't assume dates the contract doesn't fix. Recommend that every date is checked by a person before it is diarised.
Fill in: CONTRACT_TEXT OUR_SIDE START_DATE
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. Use this after signing, then put the dates into your docketing or calendar system and have someone check them.
Best for: Understanding real exposure under a liability regime
You are a commercial litigator who has seen how liability clauses work when a deal goes wrong. Analyse the risk allocation in this contract for my client.
Relevant clauses (liability, cap, exclusions, indemnities, insurance, warranties, and any definitions they use), verbatim: {{LIABILITY_CLAUSES}}
We act for: {{OUR_SIDE}}
Contract value and the worst realistic loss my client could suffer or cause: {{EXPOSURE_CONTEXT}}
Governing law: {{JURISDICTION}}
Do this:
1. Map: who bears which losses. Put it in a table covering direct loss, indirect or consequential loss, lost profits, data loss, third-party claims and regulatory fines.
2. The cap: amount, how it is calculated, what sits outside it, and whether it is mutual. Test it against the worst realistic loss figure.
3. Indemnities: triggers, scope, procedure (notice, conduct of claims), and whether they are capped.
4. Interaction problems: where the exclusion, cap and indemnity clauses work against each other or leave gaps.
5. Two loss scenarios my client should test the clauses against, walked through step by step.
6. Enforceability points to check under the governing law, tagged [CHECK LAW], without stating the rule.
7. The three changes that would most improve my client's position.
Fill in: LIABILITY_CLAUSES OUR_SIDE EXPOSURE_CONTEXT JURISDICTION
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. Paste all the clauses that interact, including definitions such as 'Losses'. Loss scenarios work best with realistic figures.
Best for: Preparing an issues list in reply to a counterparty markup
Act as the lawyer running the negotiation for my client. The other side has returned our draft with changes. Help me prepare our response.
Their changes (paste the redline as text, or the old and new wording for each changed clause): {{THEIR_MARKUP}}
We act for: {{OUR_SIDE}}
Our priorities and red lines for this deal: {{OUR_PRIORITIES}}
Produce an issues list as a table, one row per change:
- Clause and a summary of their change
- Effect on my client in one sentence
- Recommended response: ACCEPT, ACCEPT WITH AMENDMENT, REJECT, or CLIENT DECISION
- Proposed wording for any amendment
- Reply comment to the other side, one or two sentences, professional in tone
After the table:
1. Trade-offs: changes we could concede in exchange for others, paired up.
2. Changes that touch my red lines, flagged first.
3. Any change that looks innocent but shifts risk (silent deletions, new defined terms, altered cross-references).
4. Questions for the client before we reply.
Don't recommend accepting a change just to move the deal along. Flag anything you can't assess without the full contract.
Fill in: THEIR_MARKUP OUR_SIDE OUR_PRIORITIES
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. If you only have a comparison PDF, copy each change into a simple 'was / now' list first.
First Drafts & Templates
Use these for a structured first draft you then review and adapt to your firm's precedents. They cover a mutual NDA, a demand letter or letter before action, a holding reply to a demand you've received, and the scope and fees sections of an engagement letter. There are also prompts for a research memo built from your own notes, three drafting options for one clause, and plain-English rewrites of consumer terms. Points that depend on local law are tagged for you to check, never stated from memory.
Best for: Producing a first-draft NDA to adapt
You are a commercial lawyer drafting a first-draft mutual non-disclosure agreement for review. This is a starting draft, not a final document.
Key terms (purpose of disclosure, term, what counts as confidential, any carve-outs or special points): {{KEY_TERMS}}
Governing law and courts: {{JURISDICTION}}
Our client's role and what they most need protected: {{CLIENT_PRIORITIES}}
Draft a mutual NDA with numbered clauses covering: definitions, permitted purpose, obligations of the recipient, standard exclusions (already known, public, independently developed, received from a third party), compelled disclosure, return or destruction, no licence, no obligation to proceed, term and survival, remedies, and governing law.
Rules:
- Use plain modern drafting, defined terms in capitals, and "must" rather than "shall".
- Leave party names, dates and addresses as [PARTY A], [DATE] and similar.
- Where the governing law commonly requires or affects a provision (for example, enforceability of injunctions or limits on restrictive terms), add a bracketed drafting note tagged [CHECK LAW] instead of stating the rule.
- After the draft, list the five choices a reviewing lawyer must make (for example, term length, residuals clause, non-solicit) with the options.
Fill in: KEY_TERMS JURISDICTION CLIENT_PRIORITIES
Treat the output as a precedent you then compare against your firm's own NDA. Never send it without review.
Best for: First draft of a demand or pre-action letter
Act as a litigator drafting a firm but professional pre-action letter for my review.
Jurisdiction and any pre-action rules that apply (for example, a pre-action protocol or a statutory notice requirement): {{JURISDICTION}}
What happened, with dates and amounts: {{CLAIM_FACTS}}
What we demand and by when: {{DEMAND}}
Documents we can refer to: {{SUPPORTING_DOCS}}
The facts are anonymised (Client A, Company B). Don't ask for names or identifying details.
Draft the letter with these parts:
1. Heading marked "without prejudice" or "open" as I choose; ask me if unclear.
2. Who we act for and the purpose of the letter.
3. Facts, set out chronologically and neutrally.
4. The basis of the claim in general terms, with any legal basis described in words and tagged [AUTHORITY NEEDED] instead of citations.
5. The loss or remedy sought, with the calculation shown.
6. A clear demand and deadline, and what happens if it isn't met.
7. A request to preserve documents, and a list of documents we ask them to provide, if appropriate.
Keep it accurate: no threats of criminal action or anything I haven't instructed, no overstated losses. If the recipient has a lawyer, address it to their lawyer. After the letter, list every factual statement I must verify and any pre-action requirements I should confirm for this jurisdiction.
Fill in: JURISDICTION CLAIM_FACTS DEMAND SUPPORTING_DOCS
Fill in real facts only after anonymising; add names and authorities in your own document system.
Best for: Buying time properly after a demand arrives
You are a defence lawyer preparing a holding reply and a response plan for a client who has received a demand.
The demand letter (text): {{DEMAND_LETTER}}
Our client's account of events: {{CLIENT_ACCOUNT}}
Jurisdiction: {{JURISDICTION}}
The facts are anonymised (Client A, Company B). Don't ask for names or identifying details.
Do this:
1. Analysis: list each allegation and demand in the letter, and next to it whether the client's account admits, denies or doesn't address it.
2. Deadlines: every deadline in the letter, plus any response period that may apply under local rules, tagged [CHECK RULES].
3. Immediate steps: preservation of documents, insurance notification, and what the client must not do (for example, contacting the other side directly).
4. Holding reply: a short letter acknowledging receipt, stating that we are instructed and taking instructions, reserving all rights, and proposing a realistic date for a full response. It must admit nothing and not engage on the merits.
5. Questions for the client and documents to collect before the full response.
Don't concede liability, and don't suggest arguments that depend on facts the client hasn't given. Flag any point where the letter may be right.
Fill in: DEMAND_LETTER CLIENT_ACCOUNT JURISDICTION
Use it the day a demand arrives, so deadlines and insurance notice aren't missed.
Best for: Tightening scope, exclusions and fee terms in an engagement letter
Act as a law-firm risk partner drafting the scope, exclusions and fees sections of an engagement letter. Be precise: the scope must say exactly what we will and won't do.
Matter description and what the client has asked us to do: {{MATTER_DESCRIPTION}}
Fee arrangement (hourly rates by grade, fixed fee, cap, estimate, retainer): {{FEE_ARRANGEMENT}}
Jurisdiction and regulator (for example, a state bar or the SRA): {{JURISDICTION}}
Draft:
1. Scope of work: the specific tasks we will do, in a numbered list.
2. Exclusions: related work we are not doing unless separately agreed (for example, tax advice, appeals, advice on other jurisdictions).
3. Assumptions the fee depends on, and what happens if they change.
4. Fees and billing: the arrangement in plain English, billing frequency, how disbursements and third-party costs are handled, and when we will update an estimate.
5. Use of technology: a short, plain statement of how the firm may use AI tools, how client information is protected, and how this affects fees. Leave it as [FIRM TO CONFIRM] where firm policy decides.
6. Client responsibilities.
After the draft, list any regulatory content the letter must contain in this jurisdiction (client-care information, complaints procedure), tagged [CHECK RULES]. Don't state those rules from memory.
Fill in: MATTER_DESCRIPTION FEE_ARRANGEMENT JURISDICTION
Merge the output into your firm's approved engagement template; don't replace it.
Best for: Structuring an office memo from research you've completed
You are a senior associate helping a junior turn research notes into a properly structured office memo. Use only the notes and authorities I provide.
My research notes (with the authorities I found and pinpoints): {{RESEARCH_NOTES}}
Question presented, as the partner asked it: {{QUESTION}}
Jurisdiction: {{JURISDICTION}}
Length the partner wants: {{LENGTH}}
Build the memo:
1. Question presented, rewritten precisely.
2. Brief answer: two to four sentences, with an honest confidence level (clear, likely, uncertain), based only on my notes.
3. Facts: assumed facts, labelled as assumptions where my notes don't establish them.
4. Discussion: organised by issue using IRAC or CREAC, with each rule statement tied to an authority from my notes and its pinpoint. Where my notes have no authority for a point, write [AUTHORITY NEEDED].
5. Counter-arguments and how a court might go the other way.
6. Recommendation and next steps.
7. Open questions and research gaps.
Never cite an authority that isn't in my notes. Keep the tone objective: a memo predicts, it doesn't advocate. List every authority used at the end so I can cite-check it.
Fill in: RESEARCH_NOTES QUESTION JURISDICTION LENGTH
Paste your actual notes, including pinpoints. The quality of the memo depends on the research you've done.
Best for: Giving a client or partner clear choices on one clause
Act as a precise transactional drafter. I need options for a single clause so the client or partner can choose an approach.
What the clause must do: {{CLAUSE_PURPOSE}}
Contract type and our client's side: {{CONTEXT}}
Governing law: {{JURISDICTION}}
Any wording or defined terms the clause must use: {{EXISTING_TERMS}}
Draft three versions:
- Option A, protective: strongly favours my client.
- Option B, balanced: something a reasonable counterparty would likely accept.
- Option C, light: minimal protection, for low-value or high-trust deals.
For each option give:
1. The full clause wording, numbered and ready to paste.
2. Two sentences on what it achieves and where it leaves risk.
3. How the other side is likely to react.
Then add:
4. A comparison table of the three options across the points that matter (scope, triggers, remedies, time limits).
5. Drafting notes: ambiguous words to avoid, and any enforceability question under the governing law, tagged [CHECK LAW].
Use the defined terms I gave you and don't invent new ones without listing them.
Fill in: CLAUSE_PURPOSE CONTEXT JURISDICTION EXISTING_TERMS
Good for clauses with real choices in them: exclusivity, non-solicitation, change of control, audit rights, service levels.
Best for: Making terms, policies or notices readable
You are a plain-language legal drafter. Rewrite the document so an ordinary reader understands it, without changing its legal effect.
Original text: {{ORIGINAL_TEXT}}
Readers (for example, consumers, employees, tenants): {{AUDIENCE}}
Jurisdiction (consumer protection and transparency rules may apply): {{JURISDICTION}}
Rules:
1. Keep every right, obligation, condition and exception. If simplifying a sentence would change its meaning, keep the meaning and flag the sentence as [LAWYER CHECK].
2. Use short sentences, everyday words, "you" and "we", active voice, and headings phrased as questions where it helps.
3. Put the terms readers most need to notice (fees, cancellation, automatic renewal, liability limits, data use) early and clearly, not buried.
4. Define unavoidable legal terms the first time they are used.
Output:
- The rewritten document.
- A change log table: original clause, new wording, and confirmation that the meaning is unchanged, or a note of any risk.
- Terms that may be unfair, unclear or unenforceable for this audience in this jurisdiction, tagged [CHECK LAW], without stating the rule.
Fill in: ORIGINAL_TEXT AUDIENCE JURISDICTION
Have a lawyer compare the change log against the original line by line before publishing.
Litigation & Disputes
These prompts do the groundwork associates and paralegals spend their weeks on. They build chronologies with a source for every row, early case assessments, witness and deposition outlines, and cross-examination chapters of leading questions. Others draft discovery or disclosure requests, review the other side's responses for gaps, draft privilege log descriptions, outline a motion or skeleton argument from authorities you've verified, and prepare for mediation. US and UK terms are both used, so they work in either system.
Best for: Building a sourced chronology from case documents
Act as a litigation paralegal building a chronology for the trial team. Work only from the documents I paste.
Documents (each labelled with an ID, for example DOC-01, and its date and type): {{DOCUMENTS}}
The issues in the case: {{CASE_ISSUES}}
The facts are anonymised (Client A, Company B). Don't ask for names or identifying details.
Produce a table sorted by date:
- Date (exact, or "approx." with the reason)
- Event, described neutrally in one or two sentences
- Source: document ID and the page or paragraph
- Key quotation, copied exactly where it matters
- Issue(s) the event relates to
- Significance: a short note on why it matters, labelled as comment
Rules:
1. Every row must cite a source document. If a date or event isn't in the documents, leave it out.
2. Where documents conflict on a date or fact, add both rows and mark CONFLICT.
3. Keep facts and commentary separate.
After the table, list: gaps in the timeline worth investigating, documents referred to but not provided, and possible limitation or deadline dates that a lawyer must check, tagged [CHECK RULES].
Fill in: DOCUMENTS CASE_ISSUES
Label every document before pasting. For large sets, run it in batches and merge the tables.
Example output · Claude (example written by The Prompt Index)
Sample inputs (fictional)
- DOCUMENTS: DOC-01 Contract, signed 12 Jan, Builder X to refit Client A's restaurant kitchen for $185,000, completion "by 30 April". DOC-02 email 2 Apr, X to A: "extractor units delayed by supplier, new ETA 20 May". DOC-03 site meeting minutes 22 Apr, attended by both: "A requested move of the cold room door; X to price the variation". DOC-04 email 9 May, A to X: "approved the cold room change, please proceed". DOC-05 X invoice 14 June, $27,400 for the variation. DOC-06 letter 1 July, A to X: completion was 6 June; A claims lost trading "since 1 May" and refuses to pay DOC-05.
- CASE_ISSUES: (1) cause of delay; (2) whether the variation was agreed and at what price; (3) A's loss of trade.
| Date | Event | Source | Key quotation | Issues | Significance (comment) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 Jan | Contract signed for a kitchen refit at $185,000 | DOC-01 | "completion by 30 April" | 1 | Sets the completion date the delay is measured from. |
| 2 Apr | X tells A that the extractor units are delayed by the supplier | DOC-02 | "new ETA 20 May" | 1 | First notice of delay, before the completion date. Check whether the contract requires notice in a particular form. |
| 22 Apr | Site meeting: A asks to move the cold room door; X to price it | DOC-03 | "X to price the variation" | 2 | Variation raised by A. No price recorded. |
| 30 Apr | Contractual completion date passes | DOC-01 | (as above) | 1, 3 | No document records what happened on this date. |
| 9 May | A approves the cold room change | DOC-04 | "approved the cold room change, please proceed" | 2 | The approval doesn't mention a price. Did X send a price between 22 Apr and 9 May? Not in the documents. |
| 6 June (approx.) | Completion | DOC-06 | "completion was 6 June" | 1, 3 | The date is A's assertion only. No completion certificate or handover record has been provided. |
| 14 June | X invoices $27,400 for the variation | DOC-05 | — | 2 | First time the price appears in the documents. |
| 1 July | A refuses to pay and claims lost trade | DOC-06 | "since 1 May" | 2, 3 | CONFLICT: the loss period starts 1 May, but completion was due 30 April. Clarify whether A means the day after the deadline. |
Gaps worth investigating
- Any price quote for the variation between 22 April and 9 May (DOC-03 says X would price it).
- When the extractor units actually arrived, and whether the variation itself caused delay.
- A handover record or completion certificate confirming the 6 June date.
- Trading records to support the loss of trade.
Documents referred to but not provided: the supplier's delay notice behind DOC-02; X's price for the variation.
Dates to check [CHECK RULES]: any contractual notice periods for delay or extension of time claims; the payment and dispute timetable for DOC-05 under the contract and any statute that applies; time limits for bringing proceedings.
Best for: Early case assessment and internal risk review
You are a trial lawyer doing an early case assessment. Be balanced and specific; this is for internal use and for advising the client honestly.
Claims and defences in play: {{CLAIMS}}
Key facts and the evidence for each: {{EVIDENCE_SUMMARY}}
Jurisdiction and forum: {{JURISDICTION}}
Do this:
1. Elements matrix: for each claim or defence, list its elements (as I've stated them or as you describe them generally, tagged [CHECK LAW]), the evidence for and against each element, and a rating of Strong, Contested or Weak.
2. Burden: who bears the burden on each element, and what standard of proof applies, tagged [CHECK LAW].
3. Evidence gaps: what we need to obtain, from whom, and how (documents, witnesses, experts).
4. Credibility risks: witnesses or documents the other side will attack, and why.
5. Damages or remedy: what we can prove now versus what is speculative.
6. Key uncertainties: the three issues the outcome turns on.
7. Next steps for the next 30 days, in priority order.
Don't give percentages or predict the outcome. Describe the risk in words and explain the reasoning so I can advise the client properly.
Fill in: CLAIMS EVIDENCE_SUMMARY JURISDICTION
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. Revisit it after disclosure or discovery and after key depositions; the ratings should change as the evidence does.
Best for: Preparing to examine or interview a witness
Act as an experienced litigator preparing an outline to examine a witness (a deposition, or a witness interview for a statement, depending on the jurisdiction).
Witness role and relationship to the case: {{WITNESS_ROLE}}
Issues we need this witness to cover: {{ISSUES}}
Documents to put to the witness (with IDs): {{DOCUMENTS}}
Procedural setting and jurisdiction: {{JURISDICTION}}
The facts are anonymised (Client A, Company B). Don't ask for names or identifying details.
Build the outline:
1. Goals: what we must get from this witness, ranked.
2. Background: short preliminary questions (role, responsibilities, document practices).
3. Topic modules: for each issue, open questions first to get the witness's account, then closing questions to pin down specifics. Note the document to use at each point by ID.
4. Admissions to obtain: specific facts to lock in, phrased as short questions.
5. Danger areas: topics where the answer could hurt us, and how to approach or avoid them.
6. Documents checklist: each document, the point it proves and the question that introduces it.
7. Wrap-up questions to close off the evidence (anyone else with knowledge, other documents).
Note any procedural limits I should check (time limits, rules on leading questions, objections), tagged [CHECK RULES]. Don't script answers for the witness.
Fill in: WITNESS_ROLE ISSUES DOCUMENTS JURISDICTION
Use the open-then-closed structure; it gets the witness's story before you test it.
Best for: Turning impeachment material into a disciplined cross
You are a trial advocate preparing cross-examination. Build it in chapters, with one fact per question and only leading questions.
Witness and what their evidence says: {{WITNESS_EVIDENCE}}
The points I need to establish or undermine: {{GOALS}}
Prior statements, documents or transcripts I can use, with page references: {{IMPEACHMENT_MATERIAL}}
Produce:
1. Chapter list: each chapter is one point, in the order that best tells our story (not the witness's order).
2. For each chapter: a short heading, then 5 to 12 leading questions, each stating one fact the witness can only agree with. Put the source for every fact in brackets (document and page, or transcript page:line).
3. Impeachment sequences: where the witness may depart from a prior statement, the commit, credit, confront steps, with the exact words to quote.
4. Questions to avoid: open "why" questions or anything whose answer we don't know.
5. A short list of the facts I must have in evidence before this cross works.
Use only the facts and sources I've provided. If a question has no source, mark it [SOURCE NEEDED] so I can cut it. Check the court's rules on cross-examination and on putting your case to the witness.
Fill in: WITNESS_EVIDENCE GOALS IMPEACHMENT_MATERIAL
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. Every question should be backed by a document or transcript. Cut any question marked [SOURCE NEEDED].
Best for: Drafting targeted, defensible discovery requests
Act as a litigation associate drafting written discovery requests (or requests for specific disclosure, depending on the jurisdiction) for my review.
Claims, defences and the issues in dispute: {{ISSUES}}
What we are trying to prove or find out: {{OBJECTIVES}}
Jurisdiction, court and any limits on number or scope I know of: {{JURISDICTION}}
Relevant time period and parties' document sources (email, messaging apps, accounting systems): {{SOURCES}}
Draft:
1. Definitions and instructions, kept short, defining terms such as "Document" and "Communication" and the relevant period.
2. Document requests: numbered, each tied to an issue, specific enough to survive an objection that it is overbroad or unduly burdensome.
3. Interrogatories or written questions (if available in this forum), numbered and each covering one subject.
4. Requests for admission (if available), each a single fact.
5. A table mapping each request to the issue and element it supports.
Rules: avoid catch-all requests; be specific about dates, custodians and subjects; include electronically stored information and messaging apps where relevant. Flag anything that may exceed numerical limits or proportionality rules, tagged [CHECK RULES]. Don't state the limits from memory.
Fill in: ISSUES OBJECTIVES JURISDICTION SOURCES
Check the local rules and any case management order for numerical limits before serving.
Best for: Preparing a meet-and-confer or deficiency letter
You are a litigation associate reviewing the opposing party's written responses to our requests. Find deficiencies I can raise in a meet-and-confer or deficiency letter.
Our requests (numbered): {{OUR_REQUESTS}}
Their responses and objections (numbered to match): {{THEIR_RESPONSES}}
Jurisdiction and any agreed protocol or court order on discovery: {{JURISDICTION}}
For each request, produce a table row:
- Request number and a one-line summary
- Their response, summarised, with objections listed
- Deficiency type: boilerplate objection, evasive or incomplete answer, no date or custodian limits stated, documents promised but not produced, privilege claimed without a log, answer inconsistent with other evidence, or none
- Why it matters to our case, in one line
- What to ask for in the meet-and-confer
After the table:
1. Priority list: the five deficiencies most worth pressing, and why.
2. A draft deficiency letter, firm and professional, covering the priority items and proposing a date to confer.
3. Points that may require a motion if unresolved, tagged [CHECK RULES] for the procedure and deadlines.
Don't characterise the other side's conduct as bad faith. Stick to what the responses say.
Fill in: OUR_REQUESTS THEIR_RESPONSES JURISDICTION
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. Number the requests and responses identically before pasting so the rows line up.
Best for: Drafting privilege log descriptions that hold up
Act as a litigation associate preparing privilege log entries (or a list of documents withheld from disclosure, depending on the jurisdiction). A careless description can waive privilege or invite a challenge, so be precise and restrained.
Withheld documents (control number, date, author, recipients with their roles, a short note of the content): {{WITHHELD_DOCUMENTS}}
Privilege or protection claimed for each (legal advice, litigation or work product, other): {{PRIVILEGE_BASIS}}
Jurisdiction, court and any order or protocol on log format: {{JURISDICTION}}
For each document, produce a log row:
- Control number, date, document type
- Author and recipients, with lawyers identified by role (for example "outside counsel")
- Description: enough for the other side and the court to assess the claim, without revealing the advice or strategy. Keep the description to one sentence.
- Basis of the claim
Then:
1. Weak claims: documents where my notes suggest the claim may not hold (no lawyer involved, mainly business content, sent to third parties). Explain why in one line each.
2. Partial redaction candidates: documents that may need producing with the privileged part redacted instead of being withheld whole.
3. Fields the log must contain in this forum, tagged [CHECK RULES].
You are drafting descriptions, not deciding privilege. Every row needs a lawyer's sign-off.
Fill in: WITHHELD_DOCUMENTS PRIVILEGE_BASIS JURISDICTION
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. A lawyer must approve every entry before the log is served.
Best for: Structuring a motion or skeleton argument before drafting
Act as a senior litigator outlining a motion brief (or a skeleton argument) that I will write and cite myself.
Relief sought and procedural posture: {{RELIEF}}
Key facts with record references: {{RECORD_FACTS}}
The authorities I have already found and verified, with the propositions they support: {{MY_AUTHORITIES}}
Court, jurisdiction and any page or word limit: {{JURISDICTION}}
Produce an outline:
1. Introduction: the ask and the two or three reasons the court should grant it, in one paragraph.
2. Standard: the test the court applies, using only my authorities.
3. Argument headings, written as full persuasive sentences, in the strongest order.
4. Under each heading: the points to make, the facts with record references, and which of my authorities supports each point.
5. Anticipated opposition and a short rebuttal for each.
6. Relief: a precise statement of the order requested.
7. Gaps: points with no supporting authority from my list, marked [AUTHORITY NEEDED].
Never invent or guess a case name, citation, statute section, rule number or quotation. If you mention any authority, tag it [VERIFY]; I will check every citation in a primary source before relying on it. Use only the authorities I've listed. Fit the structure to the court's word limit.
Fill in: RELIEF RECORD_FACTS MY_AUTHORITIES JURISDICTION
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. List only authorities you have read and verified. The outline will show where you still need support.
Best for: Preparing a client and a position paper for mediation
You are a dispute resolution lawyer preparing a client for mediation. Help me build our position paper and an honest internal settlement analysis.
Summary of the dispute and each side's position: {{DISPUTE_SUMMARY}}
Our assessment of the strengths and weaknesses: {{CASE_ASSESSMENT}}
Costs to date and estimated costs to trial: {{COSTS}}
Client's goals beyond money (relationship, confidentiality, speed): {{CLIENT_GOALS}}
Produce two documents:
A. Position paper for the mediator (to share): a neutral summary of the facts, our position on each issue, why a reasonable resolution is in both parties' interests, and what we need to settle. It should be persuasive in tone, accurate, and must not disclose our bottom line.
B. Internal settlement analysis (privileged, not to share): our best and worst realistic outcomes in words, the costs and time to get there, non-monetary terms to trade, the other side's likely interests and pressures, an opening position with the reasoning, and the questions the client must answer before the day.
Don't invent probabilities. If I give my own estimates for each issue, build a simple decision tree showing the arithmetic; otherwise describe risk in words. Remind me to check the confidentiality and without-prejudice status of mediation communications in this jurisdiction.
Fill in: DISPUTE_SUMMARY CASE_ASSESSMENT COSTS CLIENT_GOALS
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. Share Part A only after review. Keep Part B in the privileged file.
Client Communication in Plain English
Clients judge lawyers on communication as much as results. These prompts turn technical advice into plain English without losing the caveats, write regular status updates, and help you deliver bad news honestly. They also cover intake questionnaires, fee estimates explained before the work starts, and replies to anxious or angry clients. None of them promises an outcome.
Best for: Turning technical advice into a client-ready explanation
Act as a lawyer who is known for explaining things clearly to clients. Rewrite my advice so the client understands it and knows what to do next, without changing its substance.
My advice (technical draft or notes): {{ADVICE_TEXT}}
Client profile (business owner, individual, in-house counsel; their familiarity with law): {{CLIENT_PROFILE}}
Decision the client needs to make, if any: {{DECISION}}
Write:
1. The short answer, in two or three sentences at the top.
2. What this means for you: the practical consequences, using the client's terms, not legal terms. Define any legal term you must keep.
3. Options: each option with its benefits, risks, likely cost and time, in a simple table if there are more than two.
4. Our recommendation and why, kept exactly as it is in my advice.
5. What we need from you, and by when.
Rules:
- Keep every caveat, assumption and qualification in my advice. Plain doesn't mean more certain.
- Never promise or imply an outcome.
- Aim for a reading level a non-lawyer finds easy, with short paragraphs.
After the rewrite, list any point where simplifying risks changing the meaning, so I can check it.
Fill in: ADVICE_TEXT CLIENT_PROFILE DECISION
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. Review the 'risks changing the meaning' list carefully. That's where plain-English rewrites go wrong.
Example output · Claude (example written by The Prompt Index)
Sample inputs (fictional)
- ADVICE_TEXT: "The break clause at 8.2 is exercisable on the 5th anniversary of the term commencement date (24 March) on not less than 6 months' prior written notice, conditional on (a) no arrears of Principal Rent and (b) vacant possession. Strict compliance is required; conditions are construed strictly against the tenant. Notice must be served per cl. 15 (registered office, recorded delivery). Recommend: pay all Principal Rent in full and on time, ensure all occupiers vacate and remove items before the break date, serve notice by 1 September at the latest to allow margin before the 24 September deadline. Risk: if the break fails, the lease continues to expiry (5 years further, approx. £96k pa). Service charge arrears do not appear to breach condition (a) on the drafting but there is some uncertainty; pay them anyway to remove the argument."
- CLIENT_PROFILE: Owner of a small design agency; not familiar with leases
- DECISION: Whether to end the lease next March
Short answer
You can end your lease next March, but only if you get three things exactly right: the notice, the rent, and leaving the building completely empty. If any one goes wrong, you could be stuck with the lease and its rent (about £96,000 a year) for another five years. Every step is manageable if you start now.
What this means for you
The lease has a "break clause", a one-off chance to end it early, on 24 March next year. Courts treat these conditions strictly: nearly right isn't enough. To use the break you must:
1. Give written notice at least six months before 24 March, so it must be served by 24 September. We recommend we serve it by 1 September to leave a safety margin. It has to be sent the way the lease requires (by recorded delivery to the landlord's registered office), so please let us handle it.
2. Have no unpaid basic rent on 24 March. Pay every rent invoice in full and on time between now and then.
3. Give "vacant possession". In plain terms, the building must be empty: no staff, no subtenants, no furniture or equipment left behind.
Service charge: as we read the lease, unpaid service charges shouldn't stop the break working, but there is some uncertainty. The simplest fix is to pay them anyway, so the landlord has nothing to argue about.
Your options
| Option | Benefit | Risk | Cost and time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use the break | Lease ends 24 March | If any condition is missed, the lease continues for five more years | Our fees for notice and checks, plus moving costs |
| Don't use the break | No deadline pressure | You stay liable for rent until the lease ends | About £96,000 a year in rent |
Our recommendation
Serve notice by 1 September, pay all rent and service charges in full and on time, and plan to have the building fully empty before 24 March.
What we need from you
- By 15 August: confirm you want to go ahead, so we can prepare the notice.
- Ongoing: forward every rent and service charge invoice to us, or confirm when each is paid.
- By February: tell us your moving date, so we can check the building is fully empty in time.
Points where simplifying could change the meaning (for the lawyer to check)
- "Courts treat these conditions strictly" summarises "construed strictly against the tenant". Confirm you're happy with this wording.
- "No furniture or equipment left behind" simplifies vacant possession. Whether fixtures the client installed must be removed may need a separate answer.
- The service charge point keeps the uncertainty from the advice. Don't let it read as more certain than that.
Best for: Keeping clients informed on a regular schedule
You are a lawyer writing a regular status update to a client. The update should answer the client's likely questions before they ask them.
What has happened since the last update: {{PROGRESS}}
What happens next, with dates if known: {{NEXT_STEPS}}
Costs incurred against the estimate: {{COSTS_STATUS}}
Anything the client needs to do or decide: {{CLIENT_ACTIONS}}
Write an email of 200 to 350 words with:
1. A one-line summary at the top (on track, delayed, needs your decision).
2. What's happened, in short bullet points, in plain English.
3. What's next and when, including anything outside our control (court timetables, the other side's responses).
4. Costs: where we are against the estimate, and whether the estimate needs revising. If it does, say why plainly.
5. Actions for the client, with dates.
6. A close that invites questions and says when the next update will come.
Tone: calm, specific and professional. No legal jargon without explanation, no false reassurance, and no prediction of the result. Flag anything in my notes that may be privileged or should not go in writing, so I can decide before sending.
Fill in: PROGRESS NEXT_STEPS COSTS_STATUS CLIENT_ACTIONS
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. Send it on a fixed rhythm, for example every two or four weeks, even when nothing has changed.
Best for: Telling a client about an adverse result or setback
Act as a senior lawyer who has delivered difficult news to clients many times. Help me prepare a letter or call script that is honest, clear and humane.
The bad news (adverse ruling, weaker case than expected, higher costs, missed opportunity): {{BAD_NEWS}}
Why it happened, factually: {{CAUSE}}
Options now available: {{OPTIONS}}
Format needed (letter, email, or call notes): {{FORMAT}}
Produce:
1. Opening: state the news plainly in the first two sentences. No long preamble.
2. What it means for the client in practical terms.
3. Why it happened, explained factually and without blaming the client, the court or colleagues.
4. Options from here, each with benefits, risks, time and cost, and our recommendation.
5. Deadlines that now apply (appeal periods, response times), tagged [CHECK RULES] for me to confirm.
6. Next step and when we will speak.
7. For call notes: three questions the client is likely to ask and short honest answers.
If my notes suggest the firm may have made an error, don't draft an admission or a denial yourself. Flag it, remind me that professional rules may require prompt, candid disclosure of a material error to the client, and tell me to involve the firm's risk partner or insurer immediately.
Fill in: BAD_NEWS CAUSE OPTIONS FORMAT
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. Deadlines matter most here: confirm every appeal or response period yourself before the client hears it.
Best for: Designing a consistent intake process
You are a practice manager designing an intake questionnaire for new enquiries in one practice area. It should gather what the lawyer needs for a first meeting and a conflict check, and nothing more.
Practice area and typical matter: {{PRACTICE_AREA}}
Jurisdiction: {{JURISDICTION}}
How it will be completed (online form, phone script, paper): {{FORMAT}}
Produce:
1. Conflict-check section: the names of the parties, related entities and opposing parties, collected before any detailed facts.
2. Contact details and preferred contact method, including whether it is safe to contact them (important in family and employment matters).
3. Matter questions: 10 to 20 plain-English questions in logical order, each with a note for staff on why it's asked.
4. Key dates: questions that surface time limits (when did this happen, have you received any court papers or deadlines).
5. Documents to bring or upload.
6. Screening-out questions for matters the firm doesn't handle.
7. A short statement for the top of the form: submitting it doesn't create a lawyer-client relationship, and they should not send confidential details until conflicts are cleared. Tag it [FIRM TO CONFIRM].
Avoid questions about protected characteristics unless the matter requires them, and explain why if so.
Fill in: PRACTICE_AREA JURISDICTION FORMAT
Have the responsible lawyer approve the questions and the statement wording before use.
Best for: Explaining costs clearly at the start of a matter
Act as a lawyer explaining a fee estimate to a client so they understand what they're paying for and what could change the figure. The client should finish reading with no surprises about cost.
The estimate and how it was built (stages, hours by grade, fixed fees, disbursements): {{ESTIMATE_DETAILS}}
Fee arrangement (hourly, fixed, capped, contingency or conditional fee): {{FEE_TYPE}}
What could change the estimate (the other side's conduct, extra hearings, experts): {{VARIABLES_OF_COST}}
Write a client explanation of 250 to 400 words with:
1. The estimate by stage, in a simple table (stage, what we do, estimated cost).
2. What's included and what's not, including third-party costs such as court fees, experts and barristers or local counsel.
3. The assumptions behind the estimate, stated plainly.
4. What would change it, with honest ranges in words where the figure is uncertain.
5. How and when we will tell them if the estimate needs revising, before the cost is incurred.
6. How AI or other technology is reflected in billing, if my details mention it. Time is charged as actually spent, and learning a tool isn't billed.
No sales language and no understatement. If my details leave a cost unexplained, list it as a question for me.
Fill in: ESTIMATE_DETAILS FEE_TYPE VARIABLES_OF_COST
Use it alongside your engagement letter, not instead of it.
Best for: Answering a frustrated client without making it worse
You are a calm, experienced lawyer replying to a client who is worried or upset. The reply should lower the temperature, answer the real concern and protect the relationship and the file.
The client's message: {{CLIENT_MESSAGE}}
The facts the client may not know or has misunderstood: {{CONTEXT}}
What I can honestly offer (a call, a timeline, a cost review): {{WHAT_I_CAN_OFFER}}
Do this:
1. Diagnose: in three bullets, what the client is really worried about beneath what they wrote.
2. Draft a reply of 150 to 250 words that acknowledges the concern in the first line without defensiveness, corrects any misunderstanding gently with facts, answers each question they asked, sets out exactly what happens next and when, and offers a call if that would help.
3. Things to avoid: list any phrases in my context notes that would sound dismissive, promise an outcome, or admit fault, so I can remove them.
4. If the message contains a complaint about service or costs, remind me to follow the firm's complaints procedure and to tell the client how to complain if they want to. Don't draft around it.
Tone: warm and direct. Short sentences. No legalese and no corporate apologies.
Fill in: CLIENT_MESSAGE CONTEXT WHAT_I_CAN_OFFER
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. Wait until you've read the draft twice before sending. If it's a formal complaint, follow your firm's complaints process.
Summarising Long Documents
Long documents are where AI saves the most time, provided it quotes exactly and gives references. These prompts digest transcripts by page and line, brief colleagues on legal changes from the official text, and apply a first-pass review protocol to a batch of documents. Others turn email threads into file notes, compare several contracts in one table, and summarise due diligence findings by risk. Privilege and relevance calls are always left to a lawyer.
Best for: Digesting a transcript with accurate references
Act as a litigation paralegal digesting a transcript for the trial team. Accuracy and pinpoints matter more than elegance.
Transcript text (with page and line numbers): {{TRANSCRIPT}}
Issues in the case to track: {{ISSUES}}
Digest style needed (page-line summary, topical, or both): {{DIGEST_STYLE}}
Produce:
1. Page-line digest: a table with page:line range, a one-sentence neutral summary of the testimony, and the issue(s) it touches.
2. Topical index: for each issue, the page:line references where it is discussed.
3. Key admissions: testimony helpful to our case, quoted exactly with page:line.
4. Problem testimony: testimony harmful to our case, quoted exactly with page:line.
5. Inconsistencies: places where the witness contradicts themselves, a document, or another witness I mention, with both references.
6. Exhibits: every exhibit referred to, with page:line.
7. Objections and instructions not to answer, with page:line.
8. Follow-up: topics left unexplored or questions to put to other witnesses.
Never paraphrase inside quotation marks. If the transcript is incomplete or the numbering is unclear, say so rather than estimating references.
Fill in: TRANSCRIPT ISSUES DIGEST_STYLE
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. For long transcripts, run it in chunks of 30-50 pages, keeping the page numbers intact, then merge.
Best for: Briefing colleagues or clients on a legal change
You are a regulatory lawyer briefing the firm on a change in the law. Work only from the official text I paste.
New or amended text (with the official source and date): {{NEW_TEXT}}
Previous text, if available: {{OLD_TEXT}}
Who the briefing is for (partners, a client sector, compliance teams): {{AUDIENCE}}
Produce:
1. What changed: a clause-by-clause comparison of old and new where both are given, quoting the key words.
2. Commencement and transition: dates and transitional provisions as stated in the text. If the text doesn't state a date, say "not stated in the text; check the commencement provisions or official notice".
3. Who is affected and how, in practical terms.
4. Actions: what affected organisations need to do, and by when.
5. Open questions: ambiguities, matters left to guidance or secondary rules, and areas where interpretation is still unsettled.
6. A 150-word summary suitable for a client email.
Don't describe how courts or regulators have applied the text unless I've pasted that material. Don't name other legislation from memory; tag any link you suspect as [VERIFY]. Remind the reader to confirm the version is current.
Fill in: NEW_TEXT OLD_TEXT AUDIENCE
Paste from the official government or regulator site so the text and date are reliable.
Best for: Speeding up first-level review with consistent coding
Act as a document review manager. I'll give you the review protocol and a batch of documents. Code each one for a human reviewer to confirm. You are making suggestions, not decisions.
Review protocol (issues, relevance criteria, privilege indicators, key people and lawyers' names or roles): {{PROTOCOL}}
Batch of documents (each with a control number): {{DOCUMENT_BATCH}}
For each document, produce a row:
- Control number
- Suggested relevance: Relevant, Not Relevant, or Needs Review, with a one-line reason
- Issue tags from the protocol
- Possible privilege: Yes or No, with the indicator (lawyer involved, request for legal advice, work product language). Any Yes goes to a lawyer.
- Hot document flag, with the sentence that makes it important, quoted
- Confidentiality or personal data noted (for redaction)
After the table:
1. Patterns: recurring senders, topics or terms that should be added to the protocol or the search terms.
2. Documents you couldn't assess, and why.
Never treat a privilege decision as final. Quote exactly and don't summarise beyond what the document says.
Fill in: PROTOCOL DOCUMENT_BATCH
Use only in a tool your firm has approved for client documents. Every privilege call needs a lawyer.
Best for: Turning email chains into a clean file note
You are a trainee lawyer turning a long email chain into a file note a partner can read in two minutes.
Email thread (oldest to newest, or as exported): {{EMAIL_THREAD}}
Matter context: {{MATTER_CONTEXT}}
What the partner needs to know: {{FOCUS}}
Produce:
1. Bottom line: three sentences on where things stand now.
2. Timeline: date, sender, and a one-line summary of each email that moved things forward. Skip pleasantries and duplicates.
3. Agreements and commitments: what each party agreed or promised, with the date and the email it came from.
4. Open points: questions asked but not answered, and actions without an owner.
5. Deadlines mentioned, with source.
6. Risk flags: statements that could be read as admissions, waivers, binding agreement (for example, terms agreed by email), or that were sent "without prejudice" or marked privileged. Quote them exactly.
7. Suggested next actions with owners.
Quote exactly where wording matters. If emails are out of order or quoted text is ambiguous, say so. Don't infer agreement where the thread only shows discussion.
Fill in: EMAIL_THREAD MATTER_CONTEXT FOCUS
Export the thread as text with dates and senders visible. Remove personal data you don't need.
Best for: Side-by-side review of similar documents
Act as a transaction lawyer comparing several similar documents (leases, supply contracts, policies or employment contracts) side by side.
Documents (each labelled, for example DOC-A, DOC-B): {{DOCUMENTS}}
Points to compare: {{COMPARISON_POINTS}}
Purpose of the comparison (due diligence, harmonising terms, finding outliers): {{PURPOSE}}
Produce:
1. Comparison table: one row per comparison point, one column per document, each cell giving the clause reference and a short summary, with key wording quoted. Write "NOT FOUND" where a document doesn't address the point.
2. Outliers: documents whose terms differ materially from the others, and how.
3. Red flags for the stated purpose (for example, change-of-control clauses, unusual termination rights, uncapped liabilities, missing consents).
4. Inconsistencies within a single document.
5. Points that need a lawyer's judgement because the wording is ambiguous, with both readings.
Keep summaries neutral and quote exactly where meaning depends on wording. Don't fill gaps with what such documents usually say.
Fill in: DOCUMENTS COMPARISON_POINTS PURPOSE
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. Works well for up to five documents per run. Use the same comparison points each time for a consistent schedule.
Best for: Turning detailed diligence findings into a client summary
You are a corporate lawyer writing the executive summary of a due diligence report. I'll give you the detailed findings; you summarise them by risk.
Detailed findings (by workstream: corporate, contracts, employment, property, IP, data, litigation, regulatory): {{FINDINGS}}
The transaction and what the client cares about: {{DEAL_CONTEXT}}
Report format (red-flag report or full report): {{REPORT_TYPE}}
Produce:
1. Key findings: up to ten issues, ranked by significance to this deal, each with a one-sentence description, the source document or data-room reference, and its significance (High, Medium or Low) with the reason.
2. For each High issue, the recommended protection: a condition precedent, a specific indemnity, a warranty, a price adjustment, a pre-completion action, or walking away. Present these as options for the client.
3. Gaps: information requested but not provided, and how that limits the findings.
4. Assumptions and scope limits of the review, stated plainly.
5. A half-page summary for the client's board in plain English.
Use only the findings I give you. If a finding doesn't specify a source, mark it [SOURCE NEEDED]. Don't downgrade risks to make the summary read better.
Fill in: FINDINGS DEAL_CONTEXT REPORT_TYPE
Paste the findings without target-company names if you're using a consumer tool.
Practice Management & Business Development
Running a practice brings its own regulated work. These prompts draft a firm AI-use policy, budget and staff a matter, write client alerts and RFP responses, and produce bios and practice pages that respect lawyer-advertising rules. They also cover post-matter reviews, reusable checklists and honest time-entry narratives. Nothing here invents clients, results or credentials.
Best for: Setting firm-wide rules for AI use
Act as a law-firm general counsel drafting an internal policy on generative AI. It must be practical enough that people follow it.
Firm size, practice areas and jurisdictions: {{FIRM_PROFILE}}
AI tools in use or under consideration, with their data terms as far as I know them: {{TOOLS}}
Regulators and guidance we must align with (for example, ABA Formal Opinion 512 and state bar guidance, or the SRA and Law Society): {{REGULATORY_FRAMEWORK}}
Draft a policy with sections on:
1. Purpose and scope (who and what it covers).
2. Approved and prohibited tools, and how a new tool is approved.
3. Confidentiality: what may never be entered into which tools, anonymisation rules, and when client consent is needed.
4. Verification: every authority, quotation and factual statement must be checked in a primary source; a named person is responsible.
5. Supervision of junior staff and non-lawyers.
6. Client communication and consent, and engagement-letter wording.
7. Billing: time is charged as actually spent, and time spent learning tools isn't billed.
8. Court rules: checking standing orders or practice directions that require disclosure of AI use.
9. Incident reporting, training and review dates.
Mark points that depend on the cited guidance as [VERIFY] so I can confirm them against the original. Don't quote the guidance from memory.
Fill in: FIRM_PROFILE TOOLS REGULATORY_FRAMEWORK
Check each [VERIFY] point against the current text of the guidance before adopting the policy.
Best for: Pricing and staffing a matter before engagement
You are a legal project manager building a budget and staffing plan for a new matter. The goal is a realistic estimate the partner can stand behind.
Matter type, scope and expected phases: {{MATTER_SCOPE}}
Team available, with grades and hourly rates: {{TEAM_AND_RATES}}
Known constraints (deadlines, client budget, fixed-fee expectation): {{CONSTRAINTS}}
Produce:
1. Phase plan: a table of phases, with the tasks in each, the person or grade best suited, estimated hours as a low-high range, and cost at the given rates. Show the arithmetic.
2. Assumptions behind every phase, stated plainly.
3. Risks that would push costs up, and the early warning sign for each.
4. Delegation: tasks that can go to a more junior grade or a paralegal without loss of quality.
5. Budget checkpoints: when to compare actual hours against the estimate and tell the client.
6. A short client-facing summary of the estimate and its assumptions.
If you can run code, use it for the totals; either way, show each calculation so I can check it. Don't invent rates, hours or historical benchmarks I haven't given; ask for them if they're missing.
Fill in: MATTER_SCOPE TEAM_AND_RATES CONSTRAINTS
Use your own historical hours for similar matters where you have them; they beat any estimate from scratch.
Best for: Writing an accurate client alert quickly
Act as a practice-group partner writing a client alert about a legal development. It must be accurate, useful and not marketing fluff.
The development (text or a summary of the judgment, rule or legislation, with its official source and date): {{DEVELOPMENT}}
Which clients or industries are affected: {{AUDIENCE}}
Our practice group and what we can help with: {{PRACTICE_GROUP}}
Write an alert of 400 to 600 words:
1. Headline that states the change, not a pun.
2. Summary in three bullets: what changed, who it affects, what to do.
3. Background: what the position was before, in a short paragraph.
4. The development: what the court, legislator or regulator did, in plain terms, using only the material I provided.
5. What it means in practice, with two or three concrete scenarios.
6. Action points for readers.
7. A brief, factual contact line.
Rules: don't overstate certainty or reach; describe the decision as binding or persuasive only if I've said which. Don't cite other authorities from memory; tag anything I should add as [AUTHORITY NEEDED]. Include a line saying the alert is general information, not legal advice. Avoid superlatives, which lawyer advertising rules may restrict.
Fill in: DEVELOPMENT AUDIENCE PRACTICE_GROUP
Have a second lawyer in the group check the alert against the source before it goes out.
Best for: Responding to RFPs and panel reviews
You are a business development manager at a law firm drafting a response to a request for proposal or a panel tender.
The RFP questions or evaluation criteria (verbatim): {{RFP_TEXT}}
Our relevant experience, team and matters we're allowed to mention (anonymised where needed): {{OUR_EVIDENCE}}
Our fee proposal and any value-adds: {{FEE_PROPOSAL}}
Do this:
1. Compliance matrix: every requirement in the RFP, where we answer it, and whether we fully, partly or don't meet it.
2. Draft answers: one per question, within any word limits, answering what was asked first, then supporting it with specific evidence from my material.
3. Win themes: the three messages to repeat across the response, based on what the RFP's wording suggests the client cares about.
4. Gaps: questions where our evidence is thin, with suggestions on what to gather.
5. Fee section: explain the proposal clearly and connect it to the client's stated priorities.
Rules: use only facts and matters in my material, and never invent clients, results, rankings or team credentials. Check client consent before naming any matter. Don't claim "specialist" or "expert" status unless I've said we're entitled to, as lawyer advertising rules may restrict those words.
Fill in: RFP_TEXT OUR_EVIDENCE FEE_PROPOSAL
Confirm client consent for every matter you reference, and have the relationship partner check the fee section.
Best for: Writing compliant lawyer bios and practice pages
Act as a legal marketing writer who knows that lawyer advertising is regulated. Write a bio or practice-area page that is specific and compliant.
Lawyer or practice group, with real experience, matter types (anonymised), qualifications and admissions: {{EXPERIENCE}}
Target clients and the problems they bring: {{TARGET_CLIENTS}}
Jurisdictions where the lawyer is admitted and where the page will be seen: {{JURISDICTION}}
Write:
1. A 150 to 250-word bio or page, written for the client, opening with the problems the lawyer solves, followed by evidence of relevant experience.
2. Three short "typical matters" described in general terms without identifying clients.
3. A headline and a meta description for search.
Rules:
- No "specialist", "expert" or "certified" unless my details confirm the lawyer holds a recognised certification permitting it.
- No guarantees, implied results, or "best" and "leading" claims. Past results, if mentioned, need the disclaimer required where the page is seen, tagged [CHECK RULES].
- No client names or testimonials unless I confirm consent and that testimonials are permitted.
- Don't add qualifications, awards or years of experience I haven't given you.
After the draft, list any statement a bar or regulator might question and why.
Fill in: EXPERIENCE TARGET_CLIENTS JURISDICTION
Check the final copy against the advertising rules of every jurisdiction where the lawyer is admitted.
Best for: Learning from finished matters
You are a knowledge management lawyer facilitating a post-matter review. The aim is to improve the next matter, not to assign blame.
Matter summary, outcome and timeline: {{MATTER_SUMMARY}}
Budget versus actual cost, and the reasons for any difference: {{BUDGET_VS_ACTUAL}}
Team and client feedback, in notes: {{FEEDBACK}}
Produce:
1. What went well: specific practices worth repeating, each with the evidence.
2. What didn't: problems, their root causes (process, staffing, scope, client communication, tools), and when they first appeared.
3. Budget lessons: where the estimate was wrong and why, and how to estimate the next similar matter.
4. Client relationship: what the client valued and what frustrated them, based on the feedback I provided.
5. Reusable assets: precedents, research, checklists or templates from this matter that should go into the knowledge bank, with any confidentiality clean-up needed first.
6. Action list: no more than eight changes, each with an owner and a date.
7. A short summary for the practice group meeting.
Keep it factual and blameless in tone. Use only the information I've given. Where feedback is one person's view, say so.
Fill in: MATTER_SUMMARY BUDGET_VS_ACTUAL FEEDBACK
Run it within two weeks of closing, while the team still remembers the details.
Best for: Building a precedent checklist from real work
Act as a knowledge lawyer turning the steps from a completed matter into a checklist the team can reuse on similar work.
Matter type: {{MATTER_TYPE}}
The steps we actually took, in order, with the documents produced and any problems hit: {{STEPS_TAKEN}}
Jurisdiction: {{JURISDICTION}}
Build the checklist:
1. Phases, each with numbered steps written as actions ("Send…", "Confirm…", "File…").
2. For each step: who usually does it (partner, associate, paralegal, client), the documents needed, and the typical time it takes.
3. Deadlines and time limits: where the matter type has statutory, court or contractual deadlines, include the step but leave the period blank and tag it [CHECK RULES]. Don't fill it in from memory.
4. Pitfalls: problems we hit, turned into checks that would have caught them earlier.
5. Client inputs needed, and when to ask for them.
6. Quality gates: the points where a senior lawyer must review before work continues.
Remove all client names and matter-specific details. Keep it general enough to reuse but specific enough to be useful. Finish with a list of steps that may vary by jurisdiction or matter size.
Fill in: MATTER_TYPE STEPS_TAKEN JURISDICTION
Have the supervising partner fill in each [CHECK RULES] before the checklist goes into the knowledge bank.
Best for: Clear, guideline-compliant billing narratives
You are a billing partner reviewing time entries before a bill goes to the client. Rewrite narratives so they are clear and specific, without changing the time or overstating the work.
Draft time entries (date, timekeeper, hours, narrative): {{TIME_ENTRIES}}
Client billing guidelines, if any (block-billing bans, task codes, rules on admin work): {{BILLING_GUIDELINES}}
For each entry:
1. Rewrite the narrative to say what was done and why, in one or two sentences ("Review and comment on supplier's markup of liability clauses" rather than "Work on contract").
2. Flag entries that break the guidelines: block-billing, vague descriptions, administrative tasks, duplicate attendance, or tasks the guidelines exclude.
3. Flag entries that seem high for the task described, with a short note, for the partner to decide. Don't change the hours yourself.
4. Flag any time that appears to be spent learning a tool or on firm overhead, which normally shouldn't be billed.
5. Note any narrative that reveals privileged detail the bill doesn't need.
Output a table: original narrative, revised narrative, flags. Never invent work that isn't in the original entry, and never pad a narrative to justify time.
Fill in: TIME_ENTRIES BILLING_GUIDELINES
Use a tool your firm has approved for client data, or anonymise first. Use it before bills go out. The billing partner makes every decision on hours.