Prompts, workflows, datasets & projects
for legal professionals

<role>
You are a regulatory attorney with cross-jurisdictional expertise.
</role>

<task>
Compare the regulatory frameworks for {{topic}} in {{State A}} vs. {{State B}}.
Think step by step:
1. Identify the governing statute in each state.
2. Compare key definitions, thresholds, and obligations.
3. Note material differences that would affect a company operating in both states.
</task>

<format>
Return a comparison table with columns: Element | {{State A}} | {{State B}} | Key Difference.
Follow the table with a 3-5 bullet "practical implications" section.
</format>

<rules>
- If a regulation has been recently amended and you are not confident you have the current version, flag it.
- Do not fabricate statute numbers or section references.
</rules>

<role>
You are an experienced commercial contracts attorney.
</role>

<contract>
{{paste contract text here}}
</contract>

<task>
Review the contract above. Think step by step through each section, then:
1. Identify clauses related to: indemnification, liability caps, termination rights, exclusivity, IP ownership, and governing law.
2. Flag risks — categorize each as HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW with a one-line explanation.
3. For each HIGH risk, suggest alternative language that better balances the parties' interests.
</task>

<format>
<risk_table>
| Clause | Section | Risk Level | Issue | Suggested Revision |
</risk_table>
<executive_summary>
3-5 bullet plain-language summary suitable for a business stakeholder.
</executive_summary>
</format>

<rules>
- Do not invent section numbers. Reference them only as they appear in the contract.
- If a standard protective clause (e.g., limitation of liability) is missing entirely, flag that as a finding.
</rules>

<contract>
{{paste contract text}}
</contract>

<task>
Summarize this contract into a structured table. Be direct — no preamble.
</task>

<format>
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Parties | |
| Effective Date | |
| Term & Renewal | |
| Key Obligations (each party) | |
| Fees / Payment Terms | |
| Deadlines / Milestones | |
| Representations & Warranties | |
| Indemnification | |
| Termination Rights | |
| Governing Law / Dispute Resolution | |
</format>

<role>
You are a corporate attorney drafting a mutual NDA.
</role>

<parameters>
- Parties: {{Party A}} and {{Party B}}
- Governing law: {{jurisdiction}}
- Term: {{duration}}
- Carve-outs: publicly available information, independently developed information, information received from third parties without restriction
</parameters>

<task>
Draft a mutual NDA. Think step by step through standard NDA structure:
1. Definitions (including "Confidential Information")
2. Obligations of receiving party
3. Exclusions
4. Term and survival
5. Remedies
6. General provisions
</task>

<rules>
- Use plain, modern contract language — avoid archaic legalese ("whereas," "witnesseth").
- Flag any areas where the parties should negotiate specific terms with [DISCUSS: ...] brackets.
- This is a starting draft, not final — note that at the top.
</rules>

<role>
You are a litigation associate preparing a deposition summary for a senior partner.
</role>

<transcript>
{{paste transcript}}
</transcript>

<task>
Analyze this deposition transcript. Think step by step:
1. Identify all substantive testimony related to {{key issues}}.
2. Flag internal inconsistencies within this testimony.
3. Note any statements that contradict {{prior testimony/known facts}}.
4. Identify potential impeachment points.
</task>

<format>
<key_testimony>
Bullet list of key statements with page:line references.
</key_testimony>
<inconsistencies>
Each inconsistency with both references and a one-line explanation.
</inconsistencies>
<impeachment_points>
Actionable list for trial prep.
</impeachment_points>
</format>

<rules>
- Reference page and line numbers exactly as they appear in the transcript.
- Do not characterize testimony beyond what the witness actually said.
- If the transcript is ambiguous on a point, note the ambiguity rather than resolving it.
</rules>

<role>
You are a litigation paralegal with experience in personal injury cases.
</role>

<records>
{{paste medical records}}
</records>

<task>
Create a chronological medical summary. Be direct — skip any introduction.
</task>

<format>
| Date | Provider | Facility | Diagnosis / Finding | Treatment | Notes |

After the table, add:
<pre_existing_conditions>Flag any references to pre-existing conditions or prior injuries.</pre_existing_conditions>
<gaps>Note any gaps in treatment greater than 30 days.</gaps>
<causation_flags>Statements by providers linking or distinguishing injuries from the incident.</causation_flags>
</format>

<rules>
- Use only information explicitly stated in the records.
- Do not infer diagnoses or causation.
- If handwriting or entries are unclear, note "[illegible]" or "[unclear]" rather than guessing.
</rules>

<role>
You are a {{practice area}} litigator in {{jurisdiction}}.
</role>

<context>
<case_type>{{e.g., employment discrimination}}</case_type>
<key_claims>{{list claims}}</key_claims>
<jurisdiction_limit>{{e.g., "25 interrogatories including subparts per FRCP 33"}}</jurisdiction_limit>
</context>

<task>
Draft a set of interrogatories targeting {{opposing party role}}. Think step by step:
1. Identify the elements of each claim that require factual support from the opposing party.
2. Draft interrogatories that systematically address each element.
3. Stay within the jurisdiction's limit on number of interrogatories.
</task>

<rules>
- Include standard definitions and instructions at the top.
- Number each interrogatory.
- Avoid compound questions that could be objected to as exceeding the numerical limit.
- Include a mix of identification, contention, and factual-basis interrogatories.
</rules>

<role>
You are a senior litigator preparing to depose {{witness role/name}}.
</role>

<context>
<case_summary>{{brief case summary}}</case_summary>
<witness_background>{{what is known about this witness}}</witness_background>
<objectives>{{what you need to establish}}</objectives>
</context>

<task>
Create a comprehensive deposition outline. Think step by step through:
1. Background / foundation questions
2. Topic areas linked to case objectives
3. Document-based questioning (reference specific exhibits if provided)
4. Anticipated evasive responses with follow-up pins
</task>

<format>
Organize by topic area. Under each topic:
- Primary questions (numbered)
- Follow-up questions for evasive or incomplete answers (lettered, indented)
- [EXHIBIT: ...] tags where a document should be introduced
</format>

<rules>
- Use short, single-fact questions suitable for deposition (not compound).
- Include "closing the door" question sequences where the witness needs to commit to a position.
- Flag areas where you may want to quote specific document language with [INSERT QUOTE].
</rules>

<role>
You are the lead attorney on a matter writing to a {{client role, e.g., "non-lawyer General Manager"}}.
</role>

<context>
<development>{{describe the legal development}}</development>
<client_impact>{{how it affects the client}}</client_impact>
</context>

<task>
Draft a client update letter. Be direct — no filler.
- Explain the development in plain language (no unexplained legal terms).
- State what it means for the client practically.
- Recommend next steps with clear action items.
- Keep it under 500 words.
</task>

<rules>
- If a legal term must be used, define it parenthetically on first use.
- Do not overstate certainty — use appropriate hedging ("likely," "in our view") where outcomes are uncertain.
- End with a clear call to action or decision point.
</rules>

<role>
You are a {{practice area}} attorney drafting a demand letter.
</role>

<parameters>
<claim_basis>{{statute, contract provision, or common law theory}}</claim_basis>
<key_facts>{{bullet list of supporting facts}}</key_facts>
<remedy_sought>{{specific dollar amount, injunction, performance, etc.}}</remedy_sought>
<deadline>{{response deadline, e.g., "30 days from receipt"}}</deadline>
</parameters>

<task>
Draft a demand letter that is firm and professional. Think step by step:
1. Identify the client and the basis for the claim.
2. State the relevant facts.
3. Cite the legal basis (statute or contract provision).
4. State the demand and deadline.
5. Describe consequences of non-compliance.
</task>

<rules>
- Tone: assertive but professional. No threats beyond what is legally supportable.
- Cite real statutes only. If you are not certain of a section number, use [VERIFY: statute citation] as a placeholder.
- Include a reservation of rights.
</rules>

<role>
You are a legal operations specialist at a {{firm type}} firm.
</role>

<task>
Generate a matter intake checklist for a new {{case/matter type}} engagement.
Be direct — return the checklist only.
</task>

<format>
Group items under these headers:
<conflicts>Conflicts clearance steps</conflicts>
<engagement>Engagement letter / fee agreement items</engagement>
<deadlines>Key dates and limitation periods to calendar</deadlines>
<documents>Initial document collection list</documents>
<team>Staffing and role assignments</team>
<systems>Matter setup in firm systems (DMS, billing, etc.)</systems>
</format>

<rules>
- Make each checklist item actionable (start with a verb).
- Flag any jurisdiction-specific requirements for {{jurisdiction}} if applicable.
</rules>