| PromptSharp Law | SAMPLE ISSUEPRO EDITION |
Copy-paste AI prompts for research memos, contract review, discovery chronologies, and client communications — with the ethics guardrails built in. Wednesday, July 8, 2026 · For Solo & Small-Firm Attorneys · Litigation & Transactional Associates · In-House Counsel | SAMPLE ISSUE — a representative edition of PromptSharp Law prepared for launch. This is what every issue looks like. Your full brief — all five sections’ prompts, ready to paste into your own LLM. Plus the searchable archive of every prompt we’ve shipped. One ready-to-run prompt a day for the legal work that eats your evenings — memo skeletons with cite-check discipline, clause-by-clause deviation tables, production chronologies, and plain-English client updates. Paste into your own LLM. Every prompt carries the confidentiality and verification guardrails your bar expects. | 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. 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D) OPEN QUESTIONS — what the human researcher must confirm: circuit splits, recent amendments, unpublished decisions, local rules.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. | | 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. You are a transactional attorney performing a first-pass ISSUE-SPOTTING review for a licensed lawyer — a drafting aid, not legal advice, and not a substitute for attorney review. I will paste an ANONYMIZED contract draft (party names replaced with [PARTY A] / [PARTY B], pricing and deal identifiers removed) plus my standard positions.
Produce:
A) DEVIATION TABLE — clause by clause: clause reference, what the draft says (quote the exact language), my standard position, deviation severity (deal-breaker / negotiate / acceptable), and which party the current language favors.
B) MISSING-CLAUSE CHECK — standard protections absent from this draft for this contract type: indemnification caps, limitation of liability, termination rights, IP assignment, confidentiality, dispute resolution, force majeure. List only what is genuinely absent.
C) REDLINES — for each deal-breaker or negotiate item: proposed replacement language in plain contract prose, plus a one-line fallback position.
D) NEGOTIATION SUMMARY — the 3 points worth spending negotiation capital on, and why.
Inputs: [PASTE ANONYMIZED CONTRACT] · [CONTRACT TYPE + GOVERNING LAW] · [MY SIDE + STANDARD POSITIONS OR RISK TOLERANCE]
Rules: Anonymize first — strip party names, signature blocks, pricing, and confidential deal terms before pasting into a consumer LLM, and keep privileged negotiation notes out entirely (ABA Formal Op. 512 confidentiality duties apply). Quote only language that actually appears in the draft — do not invent clauses, defined terms, or "market standard" claims you cannot ground in my inputs. Verify every proposed redline against the agreement's defined terms and cross-references before anything goes back to the other side. 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. | | 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. You are a litigation associate building internal work product for a licensed attorney's review. I will paste ANONYMIZED document excerpts or summaries (client and third-party names replaced with role labels, Bates or exhibit numbers kept).
Produce:
A) CHRONOLOGY — a date-ordered table: date, event, source document (the Bates/exhibit reference I gave you), and significance to my claims or defenses.
B) HOT-DOC LOG — the documents most likely to matter at deposition or summary judgment: reference, why it is hot, which element or defense it goes to, and whether it cuts for or against us.
C) GAP LIST — time periods, actors, or transactions with no documents, and the follow-up discovery each gap suggests (targeted RFPs, interrogatories, deposition topics).
D) CONSISTENCY FLAGS — statements across documents that contradict each other, with both references quoted side by side. Mark anything you inferred rather than read as "INFERENCE."
Inputs: [PASTE ANONYMIZED EXCERPTS OR SUMMARIES WITH BATES REFS] · [CASE TYPE + MY SIDE] · [KEY CLAIMS/DEFENSES + THEIR ELEMENTS]
Rules: Use only firm-approved, confidentiality-safe tools for actual client productions — this template assumes anonymized excerpts. Never paste privileged material or protected personal data (SSNs, account numbers, medical details) into a consumer LLM; remove identifiers the timeline does not need (ABA Formal Op. 512). Cite only documents I provided — do not invent documents, dates, or quotations. Verify every chronology entry against the underlying document before it enters an outline, motion, or brief. 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. | | 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. You are a communications editor helping a licensed attorney draft a client update — the attorney decides the substance; you shape the clarity. I will describe what happened and what happens next, in generic terms.
Produce:
A) CLIENT UPDATE DRAFT — 250 words max, 8th-grade reading level: what happened, what it means for the matter in practical terms, what happens next and roughly when, and what (if anything) the client needs to do. No legalese without a plain-word gloss in parentheses.
B) TONE CHECK — flag any sentence that promises an outcome, predicts a result, or could read as a guarantee, and rewrite each to describe the process instead of the result.
C) QUESTIONS TO EXPECT — the 3 questions this client will most likely ask after reading, with suggested talking points I can adapt on the call.
D) SUBJECT LINE + a one-sentence voicemail version for clients who do not read email.
Inputs: [WHAT HAPPENED — GENERIC, NO CLIENT NAMES] · [MATTER TYPE + STAGE] · [NEXT STEPS + DATES] · [CLIENT SOPHISTICATION LEVEL]
Rules: Keep client-identifying and confidential matter details out of the prompt — describe events generically ("the court," "the other side") and add specifics only after you paste the draft back into your own secure environment (ABA Formal Op. 512 confidentiality duties apply to client communications too). Do not invent case events, dates, or deadlines beyond what I provided. The attorney must review and verify every factual statement before this reaches the client — the draft is a starting point, never legal advice. 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. | | 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. You are a law-practice operations advisor preparing a licensed attorney for a new-matter intake call — an organizational aid, not legal advice on the merits. I will describe the prospective matter WITHOUT identifying the prospect (role labels only — no names, employers, or identifying details; this protects confidentiality and keeps the conflicts process clean).
Produce:
A) INTAKE QUESTION SET — the 10 questions that most change scoping, in order: facts, timeline and deadlines (limitation-period risk to confirm), adverse parties for the conflicts check, prior counsel, and the client's actual goal.
B) CONFLICTS CHECKLIST — every person/entity category from the described matter that must go through the firm's conflicts system before any substantive discussion.
C) SCOPE + FEE OPTIONS — 2-3 defensible ways to structure the engagement (hourly with a budget, flat fee with phase gates, limited-scope representation), with what each requires the engagement letter to say.
D) ENGAGEMENT LETTER CHECKLIST — scope in/out, fee and trust-account terms, client responsibilities, communication expectations, file retention, termination, and any AI-use disclosure the jurisdiction may expect.
E) RED FLAGS — signals in the description that suggest declining or referring out (unrealistic expectations, serial prior counsel, deadline already blown).
Inputs: [MATTER DESCRIPTION — ROLE LABELS ONLY] · [PRACTICE AREA + JURISDICTION] · [MY CAPACITY + RATE STRUCTURE]
Rules: No prospect names or identifying details in the prompt — confidentiality and the conflicts process both demand it; run the real conflicts search in your firm's system, never in an LLM. Do not invent jurisdiction-specific bar rules — where one matters (written fee agreements, trust accounting, AI disclosure), flag it as "verify with the [STATE] bar" rather than stating it as settled. Verify limitation periods and court deadlines independently before relying on any date. 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. | | | | 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. | Your searchable archive Every prompt we’ve shipped, organized by section and task. Open archive → | Prompts are drafting templates for licensed attorneys — not legal advice, and no output creates an attorney-client relationship. Never paste client names, privileged communications, or confidential client information into a consumer LLM (ABA Formal Op. 512 requires informed consent before client confidences enter a self-learning tool). Anonymize first, verify every citation against primary sources, and review everything before it reaches a client or a court. PromptSharp Law is part of the PromptSharp family — an educational product. Prompts are templates: not investment advice, legal advice, tax advice, or professional advice of any kind. You are responsible for verifying every output. SAMPLE ISSUE — a representative edition prepared for the PromptSharp launch, not a record of a previously sent issue. Subscribe · Prompt archive · Go Pro · Unsubscribe |
|