Why most “ChatGPT for lawyers” prompts fall flat for writing tasks
Most prompt lists you find online are written by people who do not draft motions for a living. They give you a one-line instruction like “write a contract clause for X” and act surprised when the output is unusable. Legal writing has a structure, an audience, a jurisdiction, and a record. A prompt that ignores all of that produces a generic essay you have to throw out.
This article is the writing-only slice of the broader cluster. If you want a wider library that covers intake, research, and other tasks, see ChatGPT prompts for lawyers. If your focus is contracts, jump to ChatGPT prompts for contract review. The 12 prompts below cover briefs and motions, demand letters and settlement correspondence, opinion letters and memos, and edit-and-revision passes.
Every prompt is built to be pasted into ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini and edited for your matter. Bracketed placeholders show you exactly what to swap in. Read the redaction checklist near the end before you paste anything that touches a real client.
How to use these prompts
Three habits make these prompts work. First, give the model context up front: jurisdiction, court, posture of the case, who you represent. The model has no idea what state you practice in or what your judge is like. Second, give it the record. Paste the relevant facts, the operative statute, and any case you want it to apply. The model is a writing assistant, not a research tool, and prompts that ask it to “find the right cases” are how Mata v. Avianca happened. Third, treat the output as a first draft. You sign your name to the final version, so you read every word, verify every citation, and rewrite anything that does not sound like you.
For a deeper protocol on grounding research and verifying citations, see our guide to AI legal research tools.
Brief and motion drafting
These prompts assume you have already done the research and have an outline or argument theory in mind. The model is drafting from your skeleton, not building one from scratch.
1. Section-by-section motion draft
You are an experienced litigator drafting a [TYPE OF MOTION, e.g. motion to compel] in [STATE/FEDERAL COURT, JURISDICTION]. I represent [PARTY ROLE, e.g. plaintiff]. The opposing party is [PARTY ROLE]. Procedural posture: [ONE OR TWO SENTENCES ON WHERE THE CASE STANDS]. Facts I want included (paste in order, no client identifiers): [FACT 1] [FACT 2] [FACT 3] Authorities I want cited (full citation, jurisdiction, holding I am relying on): [STATUTE OR RULE] [CASE 1 - CITATION - HOLDING] [CASE 2 - CITATION - HOLDING] Draft the motion in this order: introduction, statement of facts, legal standard, argument, conclusion. Keep the tone professional and direct. Do not invent citations. If you need a citation I did not provide, write [CITATION NEEDED] in brackets so I can fill it in. Target length: [WORD COUNT].
2. Brief argument section from a thesis sentence
I am drafting the argument section of a brief in [JURISDICTION]. My thesis sentence is: "[YOUR THESIS, e.g. The contract's forum-selection clause is unenforceable because it was procured by fraud and would deprive my client of any meaningful remedy.]" Authorities I am relying on (cite, holding, why it applies here): [CASE 1 - CITATION - HOLDING - APPLICATION] [CASE 2 - CITATION - HOLDING - APPLICATION] [STATUTE - CITATION - APPLICATION] Draft the argument section in IRAC format. Lead with the thesis. Use a topic sentence for each subsection. Quote authority sparingly and only where the language matters. Do not add citations I did not give you. If you think a sub-argument is missing, list it at the end under "Possible additions" rather than inventing one.
3. Counter-argument and rebuttal
Here is the argument section I drafted: "[PASTE YOUR DRAFT ARGUMENT]" You are opposing counsel. Write the strongest counter-argument to this draft, in three to five paragraphs. Cite the authorities most likely to undercut me. Then, in a separate section labeled "My rebuttal," draft my response to that counter-argument, addressing each point in turn. Do not invent citations. If you reference a case, give the citation and the holding I should verify.
4. Reply brief from opposing counsel’s filing
I am drafting a reply brief. Below is the opposing party's response brief (anonymized). "[PASTE OPPOSING BRIEF, REDACTED OF CLIENT NAMES AND IDENTIFIERS]" My original arguments were: [ARGUMENT 1] [ARGUMENT 2] [ARGUMENT 3] Draft a reply that: 1. Identifies the three strongest points opposing counsel made. 2. Addresses each one directly without restating my opening brief at length. 3. Closes with a short, confident conclusion. Do not introduce new authorities I did not cite originally. Reply briefs are not the place for them. If you think I am missing a strong rebuttal point, list it separately at the end.
Demand letters and settlement correspondence
5. Demand letter from a fact pattern
You are drafting a demand letter on behalf of [CLIENT ROLE, e.g. an injured plaintiff] to [RECIPIENT ROLE, e.g. defendant insurance carrier] in [JURISDICTION]. Facts (no identifying information): [FACT 1] [FACT 2] [FACT 3] Damages I am claiming: [ECONOMIC DAMAGES, with rough numbers] [NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES] [SPECIFIC RELIEF SOUGHT] Tone: firm, professional, no theatrics. I am opening a negotiation, not litigating in the letter. Draft the demand in this order: caption, opening paragraph stating who I represent, summary of facts, statement of liability under [APPLICABLE STATUTE OR DOCTRINE], damages itemization, demand amount and deadline, closing. Do not invent statutes, case law, or medical findings. Use [PLACEHOLDER] for any specific number, date, or citation I did not give you.
6. Settlement counter-offer letter
I received a settlement offer of [AMOUNT] with these terms: "[PASTE OFFER LETTER OR KEY TERMS]" My client wants to counter at [AMOUNT] with these adjustments: [ADJUSTMENT 1] [ADJUSTMENT 2] Draft a professional counter-offer letter. Acknowledge the offer, explain the basis for the counter in two short paragraphs, state the counter clearly, and propose a deadline for response. Avoid inflammatory language. Do not characterize the other side as acting in bad faith. Keep it the kind of letter that opens the next round of talks rather than ending them.
7. Cease-and-desist letter
Draft a cease-and-desist letter on behalf of [CLIENT ROLE] regarding [CONDUCT, e.g. unauthorized use of a trademark]. Facts: [FACT 1] [FACT 2] Legal basis: [STATUTE OR DOCTRINE]. Demand: 1. Stop the conduct by [DATE]. 2. Confirm in writing within [NUMBER] days. 3. [ANY ADDITIONAL RELIEF]. Tone: firm and specific, not threatening. Avoid vague boilerplate. Use plain English where possible. Close with consequences if the recipient does not respond. Do not invent facts or citations.
Client opinion letters and memos
8. Client opinion letter in plain English
I need to send my client a written opinion on the following question: "[CLIENT'S QUESTION]" Relevant facts: [FACT 1] [FACT 2] Applicable law (cite and holding): [STATUTE OR CASE - CITATION - HOLDING] Draft an opinion letter in plain English a non-lawyer can follow. Structure: (1) what they asked, (2) short answer, (3) the reasoning in two or three paragraphs, (4) what they should do next, (5) limits of this opinion (jurisdiction, facts I am relying on, what could change the answer). No legalese where a normal word works. Do not introduce authorities I did not cite.
9. Internal memo to a partner or supervising attorney
Draft an internal memo to [PARTNER NAME / SUPERVISING ATTORNEY] on the following question: "[QUESTION PRESENTED]" Facts: [FACT 1] [FACT 2] Authorities: [CASE OR STATUTE - CITATION - HOLDING] [CASE OR STATUTE - CITATION - HOLDING] Use the standard memo format: Question Presented, Brief Answer, Statement of Facts, Discussion, Conclusion. Keep the discussion section focused on the strongest authority first. Flag open questions explicitly under a "Open issues" subhead at the end.
Editing and revision passes
The most underrated use of ChatGPT for legal writing is editing your own draft. The model is a fast, patient second set of eyes. It will not catch every nuance, but it will catch awkward phrasing, weak topic sentences, and structural drift.
10. Plain-English rewrite of a legalese paragraph
Rewrite the following paragraph in plain English without changing the legal meaning. The audience is a non-lawyer client. Aim for an eighth-grade reading level. Keep necessary legal terms but define each one in a parenthetical the first time it appears. "[PASTE PARAGRAPH]" Return only the rewritten paragraph. No commentary.
11. Sentence-level edit pass
You are a senior partner with a sharp eye for prose. Edit the following draft for clarity, concision, and consistent tone. Make these specific changes: 1. Cut every adverb that does not change the meaning. 2. Replace passive voice with active voice unless the passive is intentional. 3. Tighten any sentence longer than 30 words. 4. Flag any sentence where the meaning is ambiguous, but do not rewrite it without asking me first. Do not change any defined term, party name, citation, or quoted material. Return the edited version with changes in [BRACKETS] and a short list of the ambiguous sentences at the end. "[PASTE DRAFT]"
12. Structural review of a brief or memo
You are a senior litigator reviewing the structure of a draft brief. Do not edit the prose. Instead, answer these five questions: 1. What is the main argument? State it in one sentence. 2. Are the sub-arguments in the strongest possible order? If not, propose a better order. 3. Is any section doing work that another section already did? 4. Is the strongest authority introduced early enough? 5. What is the weakest paragraph and why? Be direct. Assume I want the honest read, not encouragement. "[PASTE DRAFT]"
How to adapt these prompts to a real matter
Two adjustments turn a generic prompt into one that produces usable output for your specific case.
The first is jurisdiction and posture. Add the state, the court, the procedural stage, and the standard of review. A motion to dismiss in federal court reads differently from one in California state court, and the model writes a better draft when it knows which set of conventions to follow. If local rules require AI disclosure on filings, add that to the prompt so the model produces the disclosure language for you.
The second is voice. Paste a paragraph of your prior writing into the prompt and add a line: “Match this voice.” The model will pick up your sentence length, your willingness to use contractions, and your preferred level of formality. This is the single fastest way to stop sounding like an LLM in your finished product.
Finally, build a personal prompt library. Save your three or four most-used prompts as text snippets in your case-management software or a notes app. Edit them as your style evolves. The lawyers getting real leverage out of AI are the ones who refine their prompts every week, not the ones searching for the perfect prompt list once.
Before you paste anything: a redaction checklist
This is the part most prompt articles bury or skip. Free-tier ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini may use your inputs to improve their models. Even where they do not, you are sending data outside your firm’s control. The free tiers are appropriate for hypothetical fact patterns and your own writing samples. They are not appropriate for actual client material without redaction.
Before you paste any draft or fact pattern into a public AI tool, strip:
- Client names, opposing party names, and any other party names that could identify the matter.
- Specific dates that, combined with publicly available filings, could identify the matter.
- Account numbers, social security numbers, medical record numbers, settlement figures, and any number tied to a specific person.
- Any privileged communication or attorney work product you are not actively asking the model to draft from.
- Anything subject to a protective order or sealed filing.
If the matter cannot be meaningfully anonymized, use a tier of the tool where the vendor contractually agrees not to train on your inputs. Examples include ChatGPT Enterprise and Claude for Work. Microsoft Copilot for Business sits inside the Microsoft 365 tenancy and offers similar protection. Run anything truly sensitive on a local model on your own hardware, or do not run it through AI at all.
The ABA addressed lawyer use of generative AI in Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024), which folds AI use into existing duties of competence (Rule 1.1) and confidentiality (Rule 1.6). Several state bars have followed with their own guidance. A growing number of judges require an AI disclosure in filings; Mata v. Avianca is the cautionary tale on what happens when a lawyer skips citation verification. For the broader picture on how AI fits into a small or solo practice, see our pillar guide to AI for law firms.
Related on Business AI Workflows
- ChatGPT prompts for lawyers covers a wider library across intake, research, drafting, and client communication.
- ChatGPT prompts for contract review goes deep on redlining, clause comparison, and risk flagging.
- AI legal research tools walks through the citation-grounded tools that pair well with these writing prompts.
None of this is legal advice. Verify every citation, follow your state bar’s guidance, and check your local court’s standing orders on AI disclosure before you file.
