AI prompts for lawyers
Last updated
AI belongs in legal work as a first-pass reader and a translator — never as an authority. It scaffolds contract reviews against your checklist, compares clause versions precisely, turns legalese into client-readable memos, and preps negotiations — all on documents you provide. It cites cases it invents; nothing below asks it for law.
Confidentiality first: anonymize parties and identifying facts before pasting anything into consumer tools, or work in a vetted enterprise instance. Every template here works on redacted text.
How to prompt as a lawyer
- Never ask for case law or statutes from memory — models fabricate authorities with confident citations. Research stays in your databases; AI processes what you paste.
- Anchor to jurisdiction and role: "under [JURISDICTION] law, acting for [BUYER/SELLER/EMPLOYEE]" changes every answer.
- Review against YOUR checklist, pasted in — not against the model's idea of what matters.
- Everything is a draft for professional review; the value is speed to first pass, not delegation of judgment.
The five templates
A 40-page agreement lands at 17:00. You want a structured first pass against your firm's checklist before you read line by line.
You are my [contract review assistant]. I act for [PARTY/ROLE] under [JURISDICTION] law. Review the agreement below strictly against my checklist. For each checklist item: status (present / absent / deviates), the exact clause quoted with its number, deviation from my standard position, and risk flag (high/medium/low) with one-line reason. Then: anything unusual in the document that my checklist does NOT cover — as questions, not conclusions. No legal advice; findings only. My checklist and standard positions: [PASTE CHECKLIST] Agreement (anonymized): [PASTE CONTRACT]
Redline round four. What actually changed in the indemnity, and does it matter?
Compare these two versions of the [INDEMNITY/LIABILITY/TERMINATION] clause. I act for [PARTY]. Deliver: 1) a difference table — element, version A wording (quoted), version B wording (quoted), substantive effect of the change; 2) which changes shift risk toward my client, ranked by impact; 3) which changes are cosmetic — say so explicitly; 4) the 3 questions I should put to opposing counsel about their intent. Version A: [PASTE] Version B: [PASTE]
The client needs to understand the ruling/contract/risk — in their language, at their altitude, without losing precision where it counts.
Turn my notes below into a client memo. Client profile: [SOPHISTICATION, E.G. FIRST-TIME FOUNDER / EXPERIENCED GC].
Format: 1) the answer in two sentences up front; 2) what this means for the client practically — max 3 bullets, each starting with a verb; 3) key terms explained in one clause each (no term used before it's explained); 4) options with my recommendation clearly marked; 5) what I need from them, with deadline.
Max [350] words. Tone: confident, warm, zero hedging-stacking ("it may possibly be arguable") — where uncertainty is real, state it once, precisely, with the reason.
My notes and conclusions:
[PASTE — INCLUDING YOUR ACTUAL RECOMMENDATION]
Before the call, you want to have already heard their best arguments — and drafted your answers.
Prepare me for a negotiation on the attached draft. I act for [PARTY]; counterparty is [WHO, THEIR APPARENT PRIORITIES]. 1) Write the brief THEIR counsel plausibly wrote: their 5 strongest positions on the open points, each argued as they would argue it. 2) For each: my strongest response, the evidence/clause it rests on, and my fallback position. 3) Rank the open points by what's actually valuable to my client [CLIENT PRIORITIES] vs. what's tradeable. 4) The 2 questions I should ask early to reveal their constraints. Open points and current draft positions: [PASTE]
300 pages of discovery, due diligence or a judgment — and a summary you can rely on because every claim points home.
Summarize the document below for [PURPOSE, E.G. DD RED-FLAG REVIEW / PARTNER BRIEFING]. Rules: every statement in the summary carries a pinpoint reference (section/page/¶) to the source text; anything you infer rather than read is marked [INFERENCE]; anything the document leaves open is listed under "Open points" — do not resolve them. Structure: 1) three-sentence overview, 2) findings by topic with references, 3) red flags ranked, 4) open points. Document (anonymized): [PASTE — IN CHUNKS IF LONG; SAY "NEXT CHUNK" AND KEEP NUMBERING CONSISTENT]
Frequently asked questions
Can I rely on AI legal research?
Not from general-purpose models — fabricated citations have already produced sanctions in real cases. Research belongs in your legal databases (some now with grounded AI layers); general AI processes documents you feed it. That split is absolute in every template here.
What about client confidentiality?
Treat consumer AI tools as third parties: no client-identifying information without a basis. Practical path: anonymize (parties, amounts, unique facts) before pasting — the templates work on redacted text — or use firm-approved enterprise instances with contractual confidentiality and no-training terms.
Which legal tasks does AI genuinely accelerate?
First-pass contract review against your checklist, version comparison, summarization with pinpoint references, client-facing translation, and negotiation prep. Time studies consistently show the biggest gains in review and drafting-support tasks — with lawyer judgment unchanged as the bottleneck that matters.
Does AI output create malpractice risk?
Unreviewed, yes — like unreviewed work from any junior. The mitigation is structural: templates that quote and cite the source text (verifiable in seconds), findings-not-advice output, and your review before anything leaves the firm. AI speed is safe exactly to the degree verification stays cheap.