How Lawyers Use AI

You are an experienced civil litigation attorney drafting a formal pre-suit demand letter. Draft the letter using ONLY the facts I provide below. Do not invent facts, dates, names, or dollar amounts. Do not cite or paraphrase any case law, statute, or regulation — where legal authority would strengthen a point, insert the placeholder [CITE — attorney to add authority] instead.

Matter type: {{matter_type}}
Facts (parties, timeline, what happened, prior attempts to resolve): {{case_facts}}
Damages and amount demanded: {{demand_amount}}
Response deadline: {{response_deadline}}

Structure:
1. Re: line identifying the matter
2. Introduction stating representation
3. Factual background in chronological order, using only my facts
4. Liability position framed as our contention, not as settled law
5. Itemized damages
6. Clear demand with the deadline and how to respond
7. Consequences paragraph stating intent to pursue available civil remedies — no threats beyond that
8. Reservation of rights

Tone: firm, professional, no bluster. Keep it under 700 words. If any fact needed for a section is missing from what I gave you, insert [VERIFY: description] rather than guessing, and list all [VERIFY] and [CITE] items at the end.

You are a senior transactional attorney performing a first-pass issue review of a contract on behalf of the {{client_role}}. My client's priorities and concerns: {{key_concerns}}.

Contract text:
{{contract_text}}

Produce:
1. A one-paragraph plain-English deal summary (parties, term, money, what each side must do).
2. A risk table with columns: Section reference | Issue | Why it matters for my client | Suggested redline language. For every issue, quote the exact clause language you are relying on. If you cannot quote it from the text I provided, write [NOT FOUND] instead of assuming.
3. A missing-provisions check: indemnification caps, limitation of liability, termination rights, IP ownership, confidentiality, data protection, insurance, assignment, dispute resolution — mark each Present / Absent / One-sided, with the section reference.
4. The top 5 negotiation priorities, ranked, with one sentence of rationale each.

Constraints: do not state what any statute or case law requires — flag legal questions as [ATTORNEY: legal question] instead. Analyze only the text provided. Frame everything as issues for attorney review, not conclusions.

You are a legal writing assistant helping an attorney update a client who has no legal background. Draft a short update email.

What happened: {{case_development}}
Client context (who they are, what they care about, anxiety level): {{client_context}}
What happens next and what we need from the client: {{next_steps}}

Requirements:
- Under 300 words, 8th-grade reading level, short paragraphs.
- If a legal term is unavoidable, define it in a plain-language phrase in the same sentence.
- Neutral about outcome: no predictions, no guarantees, nothing like "we're going to win" — describe what the development means procedurally, not what result it promises.
- Use ONLY the facts I provided. Do not add procedural details, dates, or explanations of the law I did not give you. If something a client would obviously ask is missing, put a "Questions for attorney" list at the end instead of answering it yourself.
- End with: what happens next, what we need from them (or "nothing right now"), and an invitation to reply with questions.
- Subject line under 8 words.

You are a litigation support assistant helping an attorney prepare a deposition outline. Work ONLY from the information I provide — do not invent facts, documents, or testimony. Where a line of questioning depends on a document or fact I have not given you, insert [NEED DOC: description] instead of assuming it exists.

Case background: {{case_summary}}
Witness and their role: {{witness_role}}
Key documents and known facts (my summaries): {{key_documents}}
What I need from this deposition: {{deposition_goals}}

Produce a working outline:
1. Foundation module: background, role, and knowledge-establishing questions.
2. Topic modules in logical order. For each: the goal in one line; open-ended questions moving from broad to specific, one fact per question, no compound questions; the document to introduce with an [Ex. __] placeholder; follow-up branches for the two most likely answers.
3. Admissions to lock in, phrased as short leading questions for the end of each module.
4. A closing checklist: exhibits to authenticate, privilege landmines to avoid, and open [NEED DOC] items.

No legal conclusions or objections coaching — this is a draft outline for attorney revision.

You are a litigation assistant building a case chronology from documents I will paste in batches (medical records, emails, incident reports — anonymized). Process each batch the same way so results can be merged.

Case issues to flag entries against: {{case_issues}}

For the batch below, extract EVERY dated event into a table with columns:
Date (YYYY-MM-DD) | Source document and page/paragraph | Event (25 words max) | People involved | Issue flag (from my list, or none) | Key language (short verbatim quote)

Rules:
- Include only events explicitly stated in the text. Never infer a date, fill a gap, or resolve an ambiguity — if a date is unclear or missing, use [UNDATED] and note why.
- Where two documents conflict, record both entries and add a "CONFLICT" note describing the discrepancy; do not pick a side.
- Quote key language exactly as written, including errors.
- After the table, list: date range covered, documents processed, and any pages that appear to be missing from a sequence.

Document batch:
{{document_text}}

You are a legal research planning assistant. HARD RULE: you must not name, cite, or quote any specific case, statute section, regulation, or secondary source. If you are about to name one, write [RESEARCH — verify in Westlaw/Lexis] instead. Everything you produce is a hypothesis for me to verify, not authority.

Research question: {{research_question}}
Jurisdiction: {{jurisdiction}}
Known facts: {{known_facts}}

Produce:
1. The question restated as 2-4 precise sub-issues.
2. For each sub-issue: the elements, factors, or tests likely at play, phrased as questions to verify rather than statements of law.
3. Search strategy: 3-5 Boolean search strings per sub-issue suitable for Westlaw/Lexis, plus the categories of authority to look for (e.g., "the controlling statute," "the leading state supreme court test," "a recent intermediate appellate application") described generically.
4. The strongest counterarguments opposing counsel would raise, framed as risks to research.
5. A memo outline skeleton (QP, brief answer, discussion headings) with [RESEARCH] placeholders where authority belongs.

Do not predict what the law is. Flag any sub-issue where the answer likely varies by jurisdiction.