Nothing Files Unverified

Legal Research & Memos

For: Attorneys who need a first-draft memo skeleton tonight — without a fabricated cite ever reaching a brief

Research memo skeleton: IRAC draft with a cite-verification table

You need a first-draft research memo on a discrete question tonight. Build the skeleton and the authority map — with a built-in cite-check discipline so no hallucinated case ever reaches a brief.

Copy & paste into your own LLM · open in archive →

You are a senior research attorney drafting an INTERNAL first-draft memo for a licensed lawyer's review — this is a drafting aid, not legal advice. I will describe the legal question, jurisdiction, and posture.

Produce:

A) QUESTION PRESENTED — one sentence, jurisdiction-specific.

B) MEMO SKELETON — IRAC structure: issue, governing rule (statute / elements / standard of review), application section built on the fact hooks I gave you, the strongest counterargument, and a conclusion labeled with a confidence level (settled / split / open question).

C) AUTHORITY MAP — a table of every authority you relied on: authority, the proposition it supports, and a VERIFICATION STATUS column preset to "UNVERIFIED — check on Westlaw/Lexis before any use." Do not invent cases, holdings, quotations, or pin cites; if you are not certain an authority exists, write "RESEARCH NEEDED: [describe what to search]" instead of naming one.

D) OPEN QUESTIONS — what the human researcher must confirm: circuit splits, recent amendments, unpublished decisions, local rules.

Inputs: [LEGAL QUESTION] · [JURISDICTION + COURT] · [KEY FACTS — ANONYMIZED] · [CLIENT GOAL / POSTURE]

Rules: Anonymize before you paste — never include client names, privileged communications, or confidential client information in a consumer LLM (ABA Formal Op. 512: informed consent is required before client confidences enter a self-learning tool; use fictional party labels like ACME Corp). Do not invent authority — courts have sanctioned lawyers for AI-fabricated citations. Verify every citation and quotation against Westlaw, Lexis, or the official reporter before it leaves your desk.

Why it works: The failure mode that has actually gotten lawyers sanctioned is fabricated citations — so the prompt makes hallucination structurally impossible to miss: every authority lands in a verification table preset to UNVERIFIED, and uncertainty must surface as "RESEARCH NEEDED" instead of a plausible fake case name. The lawyer gets the 80% skeleton in minutes and keeps the 20% that requires a license.

Useful? 👍 Yes👎 No

First Pass Before Partner Time

Contract Review & Drafting

For: Transactional lawyers running a draft against their standard positions before spending negotiation capital

Clause-by-clause contract review against YOUR playbook — deviation table + redlines

Opposing counsel sent a draft agreement. Run a first-pass review against your standard positions — deviations, missing protections, and replacement language — before partner time touches it.

Why it works: Contract review fails through omission (the clause that isn't there) and through drift (language that quietly deviates from your standard). The deviation table catches drift with quoted language, the missing-clause check catches omission against a type-specific list, and severity tiers turn a wall of comments into a negotiation plan — the exact first-pass associates burn evenings producing.

Useful? 👍 Yes👎 No

From Production to Timeline

Discovery & Evidence

For: Litigators turning a messy document set into a chronology, hot-doc log, and follow-up discovery plan

Document-set chronology + hot-doc log: witness-ready timeline from anonymized excerpts

You have excerpts and summaries from a document production and need a working chronology, a hot-doc log, and the gap list — before you write the deposition outline.

Why it works: A chronology is only as good as its citations, so every row is chained to a Bates reference the lawyer can pull — and inference is labeled, never smuggled in as fact. The gap list converts what's MISSING into the next discovery move, which is the analysis partners actually want and the step first-pass summaries always skip.

Useful? 👍 Yes👎 No

Plain English, No Promises

Client Communications

For: Attorneys translating procedural posture into updates clients actually understand — without creating advice or guarantees

Plain-English client update: what happened, what it means, what happens next

Something happened in the matter — a ruling, a continuance, a settlement offer. Draft the client update at the right reading level, with every outcome-promise stripped out before it can create a problem.

Why it works: Client-communication complaints are a top bar-grievance category, and the two failure modes are jargon and accidental promises. The reading-level constraint kills the first; the dedicated tone-check pass hunts the second sentence by sentence — a review step lawyers know they should do and skip at 7pm. The voicemail line respects how clients actually consume updates.

Useful? 👍 Yes👎 No

Run the Firm Like a Business

Intake & Practice Management

For: Solo and small-firm lawyers triaging new matters — conflicts, scope, fees, and the engagement letter, before the intake call

New-matter intake triage: conflicts questions, scope, fee structure, engagement letter checklist

A prospective client just described their problem. Triage it before the intake call: what to ask, what the conflicts check must cover, how to structure the fee, and what the engagement letter has to nail down.

Why it works: Intake is where solo/small firms leak money and create malpractice exposure — the missed conflict, the unwritten scope, the blown limitation period. Structuring triage BEFORE the call turns a reactive conversation into a decision process, and pushing the conflicts check and deadline verification explicitly back to firm systems keeps the LLM in its lane: organization, not judgment.

Useful? 👍 Yes👎 No

What you did NOT get today (Pro)

Prompt of the Week (Pro)

This week's bonus: a deposition-outline builder that turns your hot-doc log into topic modules — exhibit references, foundation questions, and impeachment setups — before opposing counsel finishes their coffee.

Which section is most useful to you this week?

One tap — it shapes which prompt leads next week.

What would you like to see more of?

Get all five sections — every day

Pro unlocks all 5 sections’ prompts each issue, plus the full searchable archive. $14.99/mo.