Create a set of 8 copy-paste prompts for a lawyer practicing [PRACTICE AREA] in [JURISDICTION]. My recurring work includes [COMMON MATTERS], and these are the firm rules on research, confidentiality, citations, and drafting: [FIRM REQUIREMENTS]. Produce one prompt each for: extracting obligations from a contract, spotting negotiation issues, building a legal-research plan, summarizing a case or authority, drafting a client update, preparing deposition or interview questions, creating a due-diligence checklist, and comparing two document versions. Every prompt must state that the AI is an assistant, not legal counsel, and must not invent authorities, quotations, facts, procedural deadlines, or client instructions. Require the user to provide the governing document, factual record, controlling jurisdiction, and source links or citations where needed. For research, require a list of search terms, primary-source priorities, negative research steps, and a citation-verification checklist. For contract work, require a clause-by-clause output with party, obligation, trigger, deadline, remedy, defined-term dependency, and open issue. For client-facing drafting, distinguish facts, analysis, risk, and requested decision.
Return a table with Task, Copy-Paste Prompt, Required Materials, and Verification Before Use. Make every prompt 90 to 150 words. Finish with a confidentiality note covering privilege, redaction, and firm-approved tools. Before answering, check that each task has a concrete legal work product and a human verification step. Check that none of the prompts treats a secondary summary as controlling law. Ask up to 3 clarifying questions only if a required input is missing.
Fill in
| Placeholder | What to enter | Example |
|---|---|---|
| [PRACTICE AREA] | State the legal specialty, such as commercial transactions, employment, or litigation. | Commercial transactions and technology contracts. |
| [JURISDICTION] | Provide the governing country, state, court system, or other applicable jurisdiction. | New York law, with U.S. federal law where applicable. |
| [COMMON MATTERS] | List the documents, disputes, transactions, or advisory work you handle repeatedly. | SaaS agreements, vendor DPAs, procurement negotiations, contract summaries, and diligence for acquisitions. |
| [FIRM REQUIREMENTS] | Paste your rules for approved tools, citation checking, document handling, and client communications. | Do not enter client names or privileged facts in unapproved tools; cite primary sources; verify every quote against the source; partner review for client advice. |
How to use
- Replace the bracketed inputs with your practice, jurisdiction, matter types, and firm policy.
- Choose one generated prompt and paste only redacted, approved source material alongside it.
- Verify every authority, quotation, defined term, date, and conclusion in the underlying source before using the result.
- Follow up with: “Adapt the contract-analysis prompt for a [DOCUMENT TYPE] governed by [LAW].”
Variations
Contract issue list
Use when reviewing a counterparty draft against your client’s position.
Analyze this [AGREEMENT TYPE] for a client that needs [CLIENT OBJECTIVES]. Governing law and context: [JURISDICTION AND DEAL CONTEXT]. Produce a clause-by-clause issue list with clause reference, current effect, risk to the client, preferred position, fallback position, and proposed question or markup direction. Pay special attention to scope, fees, term, termination, liability caps and carve-outs, indemnities, IP, data use, confidentiality, security, audit rights, assignment, and dispute resolution as applicable. Identify missing provisions separately. Do not invent business facts or legal authority. Flag points requiring client instruction or local-law advice.
Research plan
Use before researching an unsettled legal question.
Build a legal-research plan for this question: [LEGAL QUESTION]. Facts that matter: [MATERIAL FACTS]. Jurisdiction and procedural posture: [JURISDICTION]. Return issues in priority order, candidate statutes and rules, primary authorities to locate, precise Boolean search strings, databases or official sources to check, and negative-research steps. Explain what facts could change the result. Separate binding, persuasive, and secondary sources. Do not state a legal conclusion or cite cases you cannot verify. End with a source-validation checklist covering currentness, subsequent history, treatment, and quote pin cites.
Client update
Use to turn verified work into a careful client status email.
Draft a client update about [MATTER]. Use only these verified facts and decisions: [FACTS AND STATUS]. The audience is [CLIENT AUDIENCE], and the client needs to decide [REQUESTED DECISION]. Write 250 to 350 words with sections for current status, what changed, practical implications, risks or dependencies, recommended next step, and decision requested. Separate confirmed facts from preliminary analysis. Use plain language and avoid implying certainty where facts or law remain unresolved. Do not add deadlines, promises, or legal conclusions not supplied. Flag any missing fact that prevents a responsible recommendation.
Tips
- For a contract comparison, include both clean copies and state which version controls; a redline alone can obscure unchanged but important context.
- Have the model extract a defined-term map before asking for a risk analysis of a long agreement.
- Use AI research output to design searches and organize verified authorities, not as a substitute for checking currency, treatment, and pin cites.
- For privileged matters, follow your firm's approved-tool and data-handling policy before pasting any material.
FAQ
Can I use AI to cite cases or statutes?
It can help locate research paths, but every citation, quotation, and procedural statement must be checked in an authoritative source.
Can AI analyze a client contract?
It can organize clauses and surface issues if your firm permits the tool and material. A responsible lawyer must apply the facts, negotiating posture, and governing law.
Does this replace legal advice?
No. These prompts help prepare legal work product; they do not replace professional judgment or jurisdiction-specific counsel.