Prepare a neutral, attorney-review deposition summary from this material: [DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT]. The matter is [CASE CONTEXT]. The witness is [WITNESS ROLE], and the issues I need tracked are [KEY ISSUES]. Use this citation format: [CITATION FORMAT]. Do not infer facts beyond the testimony or characterize a witness as credible, evasive, truthful, or inconsistent unless the transcript itself supplies the basis and you describe it neutrally. Do not offer legal conclusions, litigation strategy, or legal advice. This is a working document for review by qualified counsel. Produce the following sections: 1. Witness and examination information: date, deponent, examiner, appearance/counsel, and transcript scope, using “not provided” where absent. 2. Executive summary of 250-400 words identifying the main testimony and material gaps. 3. Chronological testimony outline organized by topic, with each factual statement followed by a pinpoint transcript citation. 4. Key admissions, qualifications, denials, lack-of-recollection statements, documents/exhibits discussed, and objections or instructions not to answer. Quote only short, decisive language and cite it. 5. Issue matrix with columns: issue, testimony supporting it, testimony qualifying or contradicting it, citation, and open question. 6. Follow-up items limited to testimony or documents that should be verified against the record. If a page-line citation cannot be identified, say “citation unavailable in supplied material”; never invent a citation, exhibit number, date, name, or answer. Preserve qualifiers such as “I think,” “usually,” and “I do not recall.” Before answering, check every factual proposition has a source citation and separately list any transcript ambiguity, missing exhibit, inaudible passage, or apparent internal inconsistency. Ask up to 3 clarifying questions only if a required input is missing.
Fill in
| Placeholder | What to enter | Example |
|---|---|---|
| [DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT] | Paste the transcript or the relevant, page-numbered excerpt. | Pages 1-94 of the May 12, 2026 deposition transcript, with page and line numbers |
| [CASE CONTEXT] | Provide a short neutral description of the case and claims or issues in scope. | Commercial dispute concerning a software implementation agreement and alleged missed delivery dates |
| [WITNESS ROLE] | Identify the witness's role or relationship to the events. | Former project manager for the vendor |
| [KEY ISSUES] | List the factual issues that the summary should track. | Scope changes, project schedule, client approvals, notices of delay, and damages documents |
| [CITATION FORMAT] | State the required pinpoint style, such as “Tr. 42:8-16”. | Smith Dep. 42:8-16 |
How to use
- Provide a searchable transcript with page and line numbers, plus only the issues that matter to the assignment.
- Read the executive summary first, then spot-check every material admission and inconsistency against the transcript.
- Verify exhibits, errata, and transcript corrections separately because a transcript excerpt may omit them.
- Follow up with: “Create a topic-only outline for [ISSUE] and include every relevant cite, without analysis.”
Variations
Witness outline
Use this when you need a fast outline for preparing another examination.
From [TRANSCRIPT], build a witness-preparation outline focused on [TOPICS]. Return a table with topic, concise testimony summary, exact short quote where decisive, page-line citation in [CITATION STYLE], document or exhibit referenced, and factual follow-up point. Preserve uncertainty and qualifiers. Do not suggest questions, credibility judgments, legal conclusions, or facts outside the transcript. Mark missing exhibits and unclear references. Before answering, check that every row has a citation or is marked unavailable. Ask up to 3 questions only if a required input is missing.
Damages testimony
Use this when financial or loss testimony needs careful source tracking.
Analyze only the damages-related testimony in [TRANSCRIPT] for [CASE CONTEXT]. Produce a source-cited chart with each asserted loss, amount, calculation method, source document, witness foundation, assumptions, challenge or limitation stated in testimony, and citation using [CITATION STYLE]. Separate direct testimony from counsel's questions and exhibits not admitted into evidence. Do not calculate missing values, infer causation, or offer legal opinions. Flag every unsupported amount or missing document. Ask up to 3 clarifying questions only if a required input is missing.
Contradiction tracker
Use this when you need a neutral map of potentially conflicting testimony.
Compare [DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT] with [COMPARISON MATERIAL] on [ISSUES]. Produce a neutral contradiction tracker with issue, statement A, source and citation A, statement B, source and citation B, whether the difference may be timing, scope, wording, or an unresolved conflict, and records needed to clarify it. Quote only brief decisive wording. Do not call anyone dishonest or resolve conflicts not established by the records. Flag mismatched dates, version controls, and missing pages. Ask up to 3 questions only if required input is missing.
Tips
- Use the transcript's exact page-line convention throughout; mixing PDF page numbers, exhibit pages, and transcript pages makes a summary hard to verify.
- Retain qualifications and limits in the witness's answer, because a clean-sounding summary can accidentally overstate tentative testimony.
- Separate what the witness personally observed from what they learned from documents or others; foundation often matters as much as the statement.
- Treat summaries as navigation tools: counsel should read the cited passages before relying on a purported admission or conflict.
FAQ
Can an AI deposition summary replace a lawyer's review?
No. It can organize and cite supplied testimony, but qualified counsel must evaluate accuracy, admissibility, strategy, and legal significance.
What transcript format works best?
A searchable text transcript with stable page and line numbers works best. Scanned PDFs and missing exhibit attachments should be identified as limitations.
Can it identify inconsistencies?
It can surface statements that appear different and cite both passages. It should not decide whether they are legally material or intentionally inconsistent.