PromptSharp › Law
PromptSharp Law Brief
AI prompts for legal work — research memos, contract review & drafting, discovery, client communications, intake & practice management. Educational only, not legal advice.
Who it's for: Solo & small-firm attorneys, litigation & transactional associates, in-house counsel
Read the Law daily on the web — free
Every weekday issue is published free on the web — the full prompt, no signup wall. Latest issue: 2026-07-27.
Read today's issue → Browse all issues📰 Read the sample issue
This is the exact email a free subscriber receives — the real thing, not a mock-up. No signup needed to read it.
Read the free sample issue →Subscribe free — the Law daily
Free forever. Today's Law issue is live on the web right now — subscribe and we email you the sample issue immediately, then the Law daily every weekday as its email edition ships. Unsubscribe anytime.
Go Pro: 5 desk-ready prompts every day for Law
Free = the day's prompt. Pro unlocks the full issue — every section, every prompt — with personalization: answer a few questions once and every prompt you copy arrives with your role, company, and tools already filled in. $14.99/mo, cancel anytime.
See pricing →The honest deal: the PromptSharp Law Brief daily is not live yet. A paid Pro signup is the strongest build signal there is — it triggers the Pro build for this vertical, your daily starts within days of your signup, and if we don't deliver we refund generously (30-day money-back, no questions).
Cancel anytime · 30-day money-back guarantee
5 full Law prompts — free
One per section, straight from the live PromptSharp Law Brief pool — full text, copy-paste ready, no signup needed. Every prompt also has its own permanent page.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Free Law prompt guides
Copy-paste prompts you can run right now — free, model-agnostic:
AI Prompts for Lawyers
AI prompts for lawyers — research memos, contract redlines, discovery chronologies and client updates. Drafting aids, not legal advice. 3 free.
ChatGPT Prompts for Lawyers
ChatGPT prompts for lawyers — research memo skeletons, contract redlines, discovery chronologies and client updates. Drafting aids, not legal advice.
What Pro will include here
The universal Pro benefit set — identical architecture in every PromptSharp vertical. Tap any benefit to see what it means:
What Pro unlocks
Every prompt, every day
The full daily prompt set, not just the free rotating sample.This matters to me →MCP access
Pull your prompts straight into Claude, Cursor & any MCP client — scoped to your tier (your vertical / your 3 / entire cross-vertical). Profile-merged responses are a later enhancement.This matters to me →Role-personalized prompts
Every prompt tailored to your role — log in, set your profile once, and prompts auto-fill for you on the web. LIVE (verified end-to-end 2026-07-21).This matters to me →Favorites + network view
Save & search your own prompts in one cross-vertical favorites library (one click), PLUS see the most-favorited across the network (early ranking estimated from usage, sharpens over time). LIVE (verified 2026-07-21).This matters to me →Monthly prompt packs
A curated themed pack of prompts each month on top of your daily set — scoped to your tier. Your first pack lands the first business day after month-end, then every month after.This matters to me →Weekly roundup
A weekly roundup of the week's best prompts, curated from copy + favorite signal. Free readers see a teaser; Pro gets the full set.This matters to me →Suggestion channel
A direct line to request the prompts and verticals YOU want — all subscribers, free and paid.This matters to me →
Plus Full prompt archive: the vertical's full back-catalog of prompts, free to browse by date — every prompt we've shipped stays online.
Plus MCP access — live today: connect the prompt library in Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor →
Frequently asked
Are the Law prompts free?
Yes. Every weekday PromptSharp publishes one full, copy-paste Law prompt on the web — no account required. Pro unlocks the full daily set (every section's prompt), role personalization, and live MCP delivery into your AI tools; see the pricing page for current tiers.
Which AI models do these Law prompts work with?
All of them. The prompts are model-agnostic — paste them straight into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, or Perplexity. Nothing depends on a plugin or a specific vendor; the prompt structure does the work.
Do I need to sign up to use a prompt?
No. The free daily prompt on this page is fully copy-paste-ready with no account. Subscribing (free) sends the rotating prompt to your inbox each weekday; Pro adds the complete daily issue and personalization.
What does Pro add for Law?
Pro delivers every section's prompt every day (not just the one free rotating prompt), personalizes each prompt to your role, company, and tools from a one-time profile, and makes the library available inside your AI tools over MCP. Current pricing and tiers are on the pricing page.
Suggest a topic
Tell us the vertical, the workflow, or the exact prompt you wish existed — suggestions go straight into our build queue and genuinely steer what we make next.
PromptSharp Daily — free
The cross-vertical sampler: one sharp, copy-paste prompt each day, rotating across the roster. Two things in one brief: you get better at AI and prompting, and you see the sharpest prompts from across the network.
Double-opt-in. Unsubscribe anytime. No spam, ever.
Even a sharp prompt starts from zero unless your AI knows you. Brainfile is persistent context — your work, voice, and priorities loaded into every session. Brainfile is the memory; PromptSharp is the playbook. Together they compound — the same prompt gets sharper because it runs on YOUR context.
Set up your brainfile →Want both? The All-Access + Brainfile annual bundle covers the pair.
Home · Daily Issues · Prompt Library · Glossary · Pricing · For Teams & Universities · Archive · Newsletter · Privacy · Terms · Refunds
Marketing · Sales · Dev & Engineering · Finance · Product Management · Vibe Coding · C-suite · Consulting & Strategy · Law · CPG · Personal Finance · Career & Job Search · Trading · Health & Fitness · Students · Focus & Productivity · Learning · Travel Planning