AI Prompts for Lawyers: Drafting and Source Checks

Good AI prompts for lawyers define the jurisdiction, task, permitted sources, and verification required before anyone relies on the output. Use the templates below to organize questions, compare supplied authority, and draft from checked material. A fluent answer is still a draft for a lawyer to examine.

Reusable instructions can live separately from matter documents. fenbs can retain general work rules, prompts, and checking tasks for connected assistants while confidential material remains in systems your firm approves. Start with a fictional matter so you can test the method without introducing client information.

What should a legal work prompt specify first?

State the question narrowly enough that you can tell when the work is complete. Include jurisdiction, relevant date, procedural posture, audience, and the type of output you need. A request for an issue list needs different instructions from a request to revise a section of an already researched memorandum.

Separate facts, assumptions, and disputed assertions. Label sources by document and location so the assistant can point to the material it used. If an important date or fact is absent, instruct it to stop at that gap or write a question for the responsible lawyer. Do not let it silently choose the more convenient version.

• Scope: the legal question, jurisdiction, time period, and issues excluded from the task.
• Facts: authorized material, with disputed statements and assumptions clearly labeled.
• Sources: what the assistant may consult and what the lawyer has already checked.
• Output: the requested structure, audience, and level of detail.
• Verification: who checks citations, quotations, legal status, facts, and filing requirements.

Use system prompt examples to distinguish standing work instructions from a one-time request. A general role instruction cannot supply the missing jurisdiction or facts for a particular assignment.

How can you create a research plan without accepting invented law?

Ask first for questions and a search plan, rather than an answer decorated with citations. Treat suggested authorities as leads until you locate and read them in appropriate sources. Require the assistant to identify the information it would need before drawing a conclusion.

Prepare a research plan for this fictional legal question.
Jurisdiction: [jurisdiction]. Relevant date: [date]. Procedural posture: [posture].
Question and fictional facts: [paste].
Return: threshold questions, potentially relevant legal issues, search terms, primary-source categories to inspect, and missing facts.
Do not invent cases, statutes, quotations, holdings, or citations. Do not give a final legal conclusion.
Separate supplied facts from assumptions. Flag any issue outside the stated scope.
End with the checks a lawyer must complete before drafting advice.

Review the issue map before following it. Look for a missing threshold question, a factual assumption presented as settled, or an issue outside the requested scope. Use your research system to locate the actual authorities, inspect the full text, and identify relevant contrary authority.

ABA Formal Opinion 512↗ (opens in a new tab) discusses competence and review when using generative AI. Use it alongside the rules and guidance applicable to your practice; its analysis is not a substitute for checking your own jurisdiction and court requirements.

Which prompt makes a supplied-source comparison easier to verify?

After locating sources, provide only material your firm permits in the chosen tool. Ask for a comparison matrix with a location for each proposition and a separate field for gaps. A pinpoint citation, meaning the page or paragraph supporting the statement, makes review easier than a case name alone.

Organize only the supplied authority excerpts for [narrow question].
Return a table: source ID | court or issuing body as supplied | proposition supported | page or paragraph | relevant limitation | unresolved question.
Distinguish the source text from your interpretation. Do not add authorities from memory or fill missing citation details.
If an excerpt is insufficient to support a proposition, say what surrounding text needs review.
Do not claim a source remains good law. Put current-status verification in the lawyer checklist.
Authorized source packet: [paste permitted material]

Read the surrounding passage, not just the cited sentence. Check whether a statement is the court’s reasoning, a party’s argument, or a description of another decision. Confirm the source’s relevance to your jurisdiction and facts, and use an appropriate research service to investigate later treatment and current status.

Keep the verification task visible until a person completes it. fenbs can hold general checking instructions and task progress, without requiring you to copy the source packet or confidential analysis into the shared prompt record.

How can you draft from checked material without adding unsupported conclusions?

Give the assistant an approved outline and checked propositions. Ask it to preserve uncertainty rather than resolve it through smooth wording. A drafting prompt should make new factual statements, new authorities, and changed legal conclusions easy to detect.

Draft [document section] for [audience] using only this approved outline and checked proposition list.
Preserve disputed facts and qualifications. Include source IDs beside statements requiring authority.
Do not add facts, authorities, legal standards, or remedies beyond the supplied material.
Use [verification needed] wherever the outline requires support that is absent.
Return the draft, then list any ambiguity, unsupported inference, or change from the outline.
Do not describe the draft as ready to file or send.
Outline: [paste authorized outline]
Checked propositions: [paste authorized material]

Compare the draft with the outline and source list. A small wording change can increase the strength of a proposition: “may” can become “must,” or a fact-specific result can become a general rule. Ask for a revision limited to the identified problem, then check the complete passage again for consistency.

For document comparison, use a related bounded request: identify changes between the supplied versions, give clause locations, and separate textual differences from questions about their effect. Confirm that both versions are complete before relying on the comparison. Ask a lawyer to resolve meaning and recommended action.

What confidentiality checks belong outside the prompt?

Decide whether a tool and its configuration are approved before supplying representation-related information. The ABA’s Model Rule 1.6↗ (opens in a new tab) addresses confidentiality and reasonable efforts against unauthorized disclosure or access. Apply the rules governing your practice and the firm’s approval process to the proposed use.

A fictional name may not anonymize a distinctive set of facts. Consider whether the material reveals a matter, strategy, or client through context. Review the proposed data, service terms, access, and retention arrangements through your approved process rather than assuming that a confidentiality sentence inside the prompt changes them.

Keep reusable examples synthetic wherever possible. Store the general method, required checks, and nonconfidential lessons in the prompt library. Leave confidential documents and analysis in approved matter systems, and avoid shared links whose titles or access paths expose information to unintended readers.

How do you review a prompt before adding it to the library?

Test it on a fictional problem you can evaluate. Deliberately omit a citation detail or a material fact and see whether the output flags the omission. Check that source locations are accurate, limitations remain visible, and an unsupported statement does not appear merely because the requested format has an empty field.

Record the expected input, output, and remaining lawyer review with the corrected prompt. A broader AI brain is useful for keeping that work record available; it does not make a previously checked template appropriate for every future matter.

Keep the approved verification requirements in fenbs Decisions and rules so another connected assistant reads the same boundaries before continuing the work.

Use separate research prompts, copywriting prompts, SEO prompts, teaching prompts, or marketing prompts when the actual task is source gathering, general copy, search work, instruction, or campaigns rather than supervised legal work.

How to do this with fenbs

1. Create a free account, then add a project for general legal work methods without client-identifying details.
2. Save one tested prompt in Skills and prompts, with fictional inputs and an explicit lawyer-review checklist.
3. Record the tool-use and verification rules a responsible person approved in Decisions and rules.
4. Connect a supported assistant and ask it to read the context before using the saved instructions.
5. Track unfinished checks as tasks, and save progress so the next session knows what remains unverified.

fenbs is free for one person, with no credit card. It fits reusable instructions and checking progress; it is not the right fit for your confidential matter archive or a replacement for authoritative legal research. Start with a fictional source matrix and check whether every gap stays visible.

Browse the AI prompts collection for other bounded work patterns. Save one verified example alongside your prompt so another person can recognize the expected standard of review.