Know what to try first with AI.

Section 1

The six elements of a working prompt.

Every useful template uses the same skeleton. Remove any piece and the output gets weaker.

Section 2

Eight prompt templates.

Replace the bracketed fields with your specifics. Keep the guardrails.

You are an experienced [practice area] attorney drafting a client-facing email.Audience: my client, [name]. Background: [age, profession, what they care about].Context: the matter is [short summary, posture, recent development].Task: draft an email updating the client on [specific development], explaining what it means for them, and noting next steps.Format: one or two short paragraphs, 100-200 words, no subject line, greeting "[name]," no signature line.Tone: plain English, no legalese, reassuring but candid. Do not invent facts. Sign from "[your name]" only.

You are a senior litigation associate summarizing a [document type] for the lead attorney.Audience: me, the lead attorney. I have read it once and need a refresher.Context: the document is the [document type] from [matter name]. Key issues: [list].Task: summarize in [length], organized by topic, with direct quotations where exact language matters. Cover at minimum: [list of topics that must be addressed].Format: written summary with topic headings in bold. Direct quotations in quotation marks with line citations.Tone: factual and neutral. No legal conclusions. Flag inconsistencies, gaps, or red flags at the end under "FLAGS."[Paste document here.]

You are a plaintiff-side [practice area] attorney drafting a settlement demand letter.Audience: opposing counsel [or the insurer's adjuster, if pre-suit]. May be filed as an exhibit if mediation or trial follows.Context: the matter is [matter name]. Key facts: [summary]. Liability theory: [theory]. Damages: [economic + non-economic]. Demand: [$amount or terms]. Why this number: [supporting analysis].Task: draft a demand that (1) summarizes the matter and our theory, (2) identifies the elements of damages with supporting evidence, (3) makes the specific demand, (4) sets a response deadline of [date], (5) reserves all rights to escalate if no resolution.Format: business-letter format. [N] paragraphs. Demand and deadline in their own paragraph for emphasis.Tone: firm and professional. Confidence without overreach. Do not invent facts about the matter or damages.

You are a senior litigation associate preparing an outline of [a motion / an opposition brief] for the lead attorney's review.Audience: me. I will substantially rewrite the outline.Context: the matter is [matter name]. The [moving brief / opposing argument / triggering event] is pasted below. Our position: [position]. The legal standard: [standard, with statute or rule cite].Task: produce a hierarchical outline. Top-level sections are headings. Second-level items are sentences summarizing each argument or sub-argument. Do not include any case citations. I will add citations during drafting.Format: Roman-numeral outline with bold headings. Sub-points indented.Tone: rigorous and structured. Do not invent facts. Do not state legal conclusions as if certain.[Paste source document here.]

Now draft the prose for Section [II.A - argument name]. [N] paragraphs. Plain English, no legalese where avoidable. Use placeholder citations in brackets like [CITATION] where I will need to insert authority. Do not write any specific case citations - I will add those myself from Westlaw or Lexis.

You are a [jurisdiction] [practice area] expert helping me orient myself on a question I will research in depth.Audience: me, a working [jurisdiction] attorney. I want the conceptual landscape before formal research.Context: the question is [specific question]. I have not researched this before.Task: (1) explain the general framework that governs this question in [jurisdiction]; (2) identify the statutes and procedural rules I should look up; (3) suggest the search terms or concepts to use in Westlaw; (4) flag any way this might differ in federal court if there is an analog.Format: four numbered sections. No case citations. Acknowledge what your training does not cover well, or where the law may have changed since your cutoff.Tone: candid. Tell me what you are confident about and what you are not.

You are a [jurisdiction] litigation attorney drafting discovery responses.Audience: opposing counsel. Responses will be served and may be challenged on a motion to compel.Context: the matter is [matter name]. The discovery request is pasted below. Our position: [position]. Available privileges/objections: [attorney-client, work product, overbreadth, relevance, undue burden, etc.].Task: draft (1) appropriate objections preserving available privileges and protections; (2) without waiving objections, a substantive response if one is appropriate.Format: standard discovery-response format. Each objection a separate paragraph. Substantive response, where appropriate, follows after "Without waiving the foregoing objections, [responding party] responds as follows:".Tone: precise and preservative. Do not concede the underlying merits. Do not invent facts.[Paste discovery request here.]

You are a senior editor with experience editing legal briefs.Audience: me. I will accept or reject each suggested edit.Context: the brief is attached below. I am happy with the substance, analysis, and citations. The prose is verbose and reads like it was written under deadline pressure.Task: produce a marked-up version with suggested edits to (1) tighten verbose passages, (2) remove repetition, (3) improve clarity, (4) strengthen weak verbs. Do not change any legal arguments. Do not change any citations. Do not add or remove footnotes. Do not change the structure.Format: original and suggested edit side by side, paragraph by paragraph. Flag any edit that changes meaning rather than style - I will reject those.Tone: editorial, not substantive.[Paste brief here.]

Section 3

The five-step verification checklist.

Run this before any AI-assisted output leaves your office.

1. Scan for fabricated authority

   Highlight every case, statute, regulation, treatise, expert, court, judge, or docket number. Open Westlaw, Lexis, the court site, or another authoritative source. Confirm it exists and stands for the claim. Asking the AI is not verification.

2. Cross-check the facts of the matter

   Check names, dates, dollar amounts, locations, procedural posture, who said what, and what document says what. Watch for background facts the AI states as if they were harmless context.

3. Spot-check substantive claims

   Find every statement of law, fact, strategy, or analysis you would not have written yourself. If you would need to check first, check first.

4. Test the framing

   Confirm the AI answered the right question, used the right jurisdiction, applied the right rule and time period, and admitted uncertainty where the law, facts, or rules may have changed.

5. Read fresh

   Step away if time allows. Read key passages aloud. Listen for tone drift, overstatement, missing caveats, and sentences that almost work.

Section 4

Disclosure language to adapt.

Use these as starting points. Always conform the language to the court rule, jurisdiction, firm practice, tool terms, and matter.

Certification. Pursuant to [cite the rule or standing order], the undersigned attorney certifies (1) that generative artificial intelligence - specifically [tool name and version] - was used in the preparation of [identify portions], and (2) that the undersigned has personally verified every citation and factual statement appearing in this document, including independent verification of all cited authorities through [Westlaw or Lexis]. Failure of any such verification may subject the undersigned to sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 and the applicable local rule.[Signature line]

Disclosure regarding generative AI. Generative artificial-intelligence tools were used in the preparation of portions of this document. The tool used was [name and version]. The portions assisted by AI were [identify]. All citations and factual statements herein have been independently verified by the undersigned. This disclosure is made pursuant to [cite rule or standing order].

[N]. Use of Artificial-Intelligence Tools.In the course of representing you, the Firm may use generative artificial-intelligence tools (such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or similar products) to assist with drafting, summarization, analysis, research, and similar tasks. We use these tools only under contractual terms that prohibit the provider from using our inputs to train their models and that include defined data-retention and data-deletion protections. A lawyer reviews all AI-generated work product before it is used in your matter. We do not rely on AI for substantive legal research without independent verification through traditional research databases such as Westlaw or Lexis.If you would prefer that we not use AI tools in your matter, please inform us in writing and we will accommodate that preference. Such a preference may affect the cost or timeline of the representation; we will discuss any such impact with you before proceeding.