AI Prompts for Lawyers: 20 Templates for Legal Research, Drafting, and Review

WRONG: "Analyze the enforceability of this non-compete clause."
RIGHT: "Analyze the enforceability of this non-compete clause
under California Business and Professions Code Section 16600
and relevant California case law."

You are a senior commercial attorney. I will provide a
[CONTRACT TYPE] between [PARTY A] and [PARTY B].

Extract: parties, scope, payment terms, term/renewal,
termination rights, liability caps and carve-outs,
indemnification, IP ownership, confidentiality, governing
law, dispute resolution, assignment provisions.

For each term: cite the section number, provide a plain-
English summary, and note deviations from market standard.
Flag any missing standard provisions.

Review this [CONTRACT TYPE] and identify risks from
[OUR ROLE]'s perspective.

For each risk: quote the specific clause, classify as
HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW, explain the exposure, suggest alternative
language, and rate the likelihood of materialization.

Focus areas: unlimited liability, one-sided indemnification,
broad IP assignment, auto-renewal traps, unilateral amendment
rights, vague scope definitions, and ambiguous payment triggers.

Jurisdiction for enforceability: [STATE/COUNTRY]

Compare this vendor contract against our standard terms:
[LIST YOUR KEY STANDARD POSITIONS — e.g., liability cap at
12 months fees, mutual indemnification, 30-day termination
for convenience, client owns work product].

For each deviation: identify the clause, state our standard,
state the vendor's version, assess business risk, and
recommend: accept, negotiate, or reject.

Sort by risk level. Present as a negotiation tracker table.

Analyze how the liability, indemnification, insurance, and
warranty clauses interact in this agreement.

Identify: combined maximum exposure, gaps where one clause
undermines another, scenarios where protections fail, and
inconsistencies in defined terms across sections.

Present the total risk picture, not just clause-by-clause.

Analyze termination provisions and practical implications:
- For cause triggers and cure periods
- Convenience termination notice and fees
- Effects on data, deliverables, and payments
- Survival clauses and their duration
- Lock-in risks (auto-renewal, narrow opt-out windows)

Provide a termination playbook: what to do step-by-step
if we need to exit this agreement.

You are a legal research attorney. Research: [LEGAL QUESTION]
Jurisdiction: [STATE or FEDERAL CIRCUIT]

Map the legal framework WITHOUT providing specific case
citations yet:
1. What area(s) of law does this implicate?
2. Key legal doctrines or tests that apply
3. Relevant statutes or regulations
4. Competing policy considerations
5. How the landscape has evolved recently
6. Circuit splits or jurisdictional differences

I will verify any cases separately in the next step.

Based on the framework above, suggest 4-6 research paths:
- The legal theory or argument
- Type of authority to look for
- Suggested Westlaw/LexisNexis search terms
- Key legal tests to understand
- Likely counterarguments to research

Mark any specific cases or statutes with [VERIFY].

Analyze [STATUTE — full citation] as applied to [SCENARIO].

Cover: plain language reading, key defined terms, ambiguities,
how this fits the broader statutory scheme, agency
interpretation, and judicial interpretation in [JURISDICTION].

Apply to the scenario: elements clearly met, elements
contested, risk assessment, and compliance steps.

Flag the statute version and note I should confirm currency.
Mark all cited authority with [VERIFY].

I am building an argument that [POSITION].

Help me identify the strongest adverse authority:
- Legal theories against this position
- Fact patterns where courts ruled against similar arguments
- Common judicial criticisms
- Doctrines or defenses that undermine the position

For each: describe what to look for and how to distinguish
or address it. Mark specific cases with [VERIFY].

Draft a legal research memo on [QUESTION] in [JURISDICTION].

Structure: Question Presented, Short Answer, Statement of
Facts, Discussion (IRAC for each sub-issue), Open Questions,
Conclusion.

Mark ALL citations [VERIFY]. Prioritize accuracy of legal
analysis over citation precision — describe principles
correctly even if citation details need verification.

Outline a [MOTION TYPE] in [CASE TYPE] in [COURT].

Provide: statement of issue, applicable legal standard with
authority, 3-5 key arguments with supporting facts, anticipated
counterarguments and responses, conclusion with specific
relief requested.

Follow [COURT]'s local rules. Flag uncertain citations.

Draft responses to [OPPOSING PARTY]'s key arguments:
1. [Argument 1]  2. [Argument 2]  3. [Argument 3]

For each: steel-man their position, identify the standard
they rely on, explain why their application is wrong, present
counter-argument with authority, and address their facts.

Also identify: arguments to concede, arguments they missed
that help us, and procedural objections.

Draft a client advisory about [LEGAL DEVELOPMENT].
Audience: [CLIENT TYPE]. Under 1,000 words.

Structure: executive summary, background, key provisions,
who is affected, practical steps, timeline, what to watch
next.

Plain language, authoritative but not alarmist. Include
disclaimer that this is general information, not specific
legal advice.

Draft a memo for [INTERNAL AUDIENCE] about [LEGAL ISSUE].
These are business decision-makers, not lawyers.

Structure: bottom line (2-3 sentences), business impact,
legal risks ranked by severity, options with pros/cons,
recommended path, and what Legal needs from the team.

Under 2 pages. Lead with impact, not analysis.

Generate a due diligence request list for [TRANSACTION TYPE].

Target: [COMPANY PROFILE — industry, size, jurisdictions]

Categories: corporate/governance, material contracts, IP,
employment, litigation, tax, insurance, data privacy, and
regulatory. For each item: specify what is needed, the risk
if issues appear, and priority level.

Based on these due diligence findings:
[LIST FINDINGS]

For each: classify risk (deal-breaker / significant /
manageable), explain legal and business impact, suggest
mitigation (reps and warranties, price adjustments, escrow,
conditions precedent), and estimate financial exposure.

Provide overall recommendation: proceed / proceed with
conditions / walk away.

Assess IP matters for [TRANSACTION TYPE]:
- Patent portfolio analysis and freedom to operate concerns
- Trade secret identification and protection adequacy
- Copyright and work-for-hire status of key deliverables
- Open source exposure and copyleft risk
- Trademark portfolio and registration status
- Pending or threatened IP disputes

Note: formal IP opinions require specialized counsel.
This is a preliminary assessment framework.

Analyze employment law compliance for [COMPANY TYPE] in
[STATE(S)]. Cover: wage/hour (overtime, minimum wage, breaks),
anti-discrimination policies, leave requirements, remote work
issues (multi-state tax, workers comp, expenses), and hiring/
termination practices (background checks, at-will caveats,
final pay timing).

For each area: state the requirement, cite the regulation,
note the penalty, and provide a practical compliance step.

Create a data privacy compliance checklist for [COMPANY TYPE]
under [FRAMEWORKS — e.g., GDPR, CCPA].

For each framework: applicability thresholds, required
disclosures, consumer rights to implement, DPA requirements,
cross-border transfer mechanisms, breach notification rules,
and organizational measures (DPO, DPIA).

Status for each: compliant / gap / unknown. Action items
for gaps. Priority ranking.

Evaluate legal and ethical implications of implementing
[AI TOOL] in our practice.

Cover: competence under Model Rule 1.1, confidentiality
under 1.6, supervision obligations, client disclosure
requirements, applicable bar ethics opinions in [STATE],
vendor data security, and malpractice insurance implications.

Provide recommendation with implementation safeguards.