Claude for Legal: Precision Without Hallucinations
20 Claude prompts for contract drafting, clause review, legal memos, research summaries, and client communication — built on Claude's strength with long documents and careful reasoning.
Contract Drafting
5 promptsContract Draft from Scratch
1/20<role>Senior associate at a commercial law firm</role> <task>Draft a [contract type] between [Party A] and [Party B]</task> <key_terms> - Subject matter: [describe] - Duration: [describe] - Payment: [describe] - Deliverables: [describe] - Jurisdiction: [describe] - Special provisions: [describe] </key_terms> <output> - Standard clauses: parties, recitals, definitions, term, termination, indemnification, limitation of liability, confidentiality, IP, assignment, governing law, notices, entire agreement - Customized clauses for specific situation - Flag clauses requiring legal review - Comments on negotiation-sensitive clauses </output> <disclaimer>Remind user this is a drafting aid, not legal advice.</disclaimer>
Drafts full contracts with standard + customized clauses and review flags.
Pro tip: Claude's XML-structured prompts produce much better contract drafts than prose. Always flag AI-drafted contracts for human lawyer review — this is table stakes, not optional.
Clause Library Builder
2/20<task>Build a clause library for [practice area]</task> <practice_area>[describe]</practice_area> <output> For each clause type (indemnification, limitation of liability, confidentiality, IP assignment, non-compete, termination, etc.): - Strong version (favoring our client) - Middle ground version (market standard) - Weak version (favoring the other side) - Key variables to customize - Common pitfalls - Jurisdictional notes </output>
Builds practice-area clause libraries with three versions per clause type and customization variables.
Pro tip: Most lawyers' clause libraries live in old Word docs and email threads. A structured clause library makes drafting 3-5x faster. Claude can help organize and expand existing libraries with jurisdictional variants.
Contract Comparison
3/20<task>Compare two contract versions</task> <version_a>[paste]</version_a> <version_b>[paste]</version_b> <output> 1. Side-by-side diff of substantive changes (not formatting) 2. For each change: which party benefits, negotiation implications 3. Unchanged problematic clauses (both versions have issues) 4. Risk assessment per change 5. Recommended responses to each change 6. Clauses that need legal escalation </output>
Compares contract versions with substantive diff, benefit analysis, and escalation flags.
Pro tip: Claude can compare long contracts with precision that's hard to match manually. It catches subtle scope expansions and indemnification creep that slips past human review. Always run before accepting counter-drafts.
NDA Drafting
4/20<task>Draft an NDA for [context — one-way or mutual, purpose of disclosure]</task> <parties>[Party A, Party B]</parties> <purpose>[specific context of sharing]</purpose> <sensitivity>[high confidentiality needed, standard, etc.]</sensitivity> <output> Standard sections: - Definition of confidential information - Scope of permitted use - Obligations of receiving party - Duration - Return/destruction of materials - Residual knowledge (if applicable) - Remedies for breach - Governing law Flag any atypical provisions.
Drafts NDAs one-way or mutual with proper scope, duration, and remedies tuned to context.
Pro tip: Most NDA issues come from overreach — "any information disclosed" is unenforceably broad. Tight NDAs define confidential info specifically, limit to the disclosure purpose, and have reasonable duration.
MSA + SOW Framework
5/20<task>Draft an MSA + SOW template for a services engagement</task> <engagement_type>[consulting, development, design, etc.]</engagement_type> <typical_deliverables>[describe]</typical_deliverables> <output> Master Services Agreement: - Relationship framework - Standard commercial terms - Liability, indemnification, IP, confidentiality - Term and termination Statement of Work template: - Scope definition - Deliverables and acceptance criteria - Timeline - Fees and payment schedule - Key assumptions - Change order process Integration between MSA and SOW.
Builds MSA + SOW template pairs with scope, acceptance criteria, change control, and integration logic.
Pro tip: MSA + SOW structure separates commercial boilerplate (MSA) from project-specific terms (SOW). This is faster for repeat engagements because you negotiate the MSA once and only SOWs for new projects.
XML tags are just the start. Learn the full Claude workflow.
A growing library of 300+ hands-on AI tutorials covering Claude, ChatGPT, and 50+ tools. New tutorials added every week.
Clause Review & Analysis
5 promptsFull Contract Review
6/20<role>Experienced contracts lawyer</role> <task>Review this contract for a [buyer/seller/both] perspective</task> <contract>[paste]</contract> <our_role>[buyer/seller/licensee/licensor]</our_role> <our_priorities>[describe]</our_priorities> <output> 1. Executive summary: is this contract acceptable, improvable, or needs rewrite? 2. Risk heat map (red/yellow/green) per major clause 3. Top 10 clauses to negotiate, ranked by impact 4. Suggested redlines for each 5. Unfavorable clauses hiding in innocuous sections (the sneaky ones) 6. Missing protections we should request 7. Overall deal recommendation </output>
Reviews full contracts with risk heat maps, ranked redlines, and missing-protection analysis.
Pro tip: Claude is exceptional at catching sneaky clauses — indemnification buried in "miscellaneous" sections, auto-renewal in payment terms, IP transfer in assignment clauses. Human reviewers miss these under time pressure; Claude doesn't.
Indemnification Audit
7/20<task>Audit all indemnification provisions in this contract</task> <contract>[paste]</contract> <output> 1. All indemnification clauses identified (may be in multiple sections) 2. Scope of each (what's covered, what's excluded) 3. Unlimited vs capped liability 4. Mutual vs one-way indemnification 5. Insurance requirements connected 6. Practical implications in common failure scenarios 7. Negotiation priorities for re-balance </output>
Audits contract indemnification across sections with scope, caps, mutual analysis, and scenario implications.
Pro tip: Indemnification is where contracts hurt you. Most people glaze over it because it's dense. Claude can surface the real risk in plain language — "if X happens, you owe them Y million with no cap."
Termination Clause Analysis
8/20<task>Analyze termination provisions</task> <contract>[paste]</contract> <output> 1. How can we exit this contract? 2. How can the other party exit? 3. Material breach definition — clear or vague? 4. Cure periods 5. Auto-renewal traps 6. Post-termination obligations (return of materials, ongoing IP, non-compete) 7. Payment obligations upon termination 8. Practical difficulty of exit rated 1-5 with reasoning </output>
Analyzes termination provisions including exit paths, cure periods, auto-renewal, and post-term obligations.
Pro tip: Exit terms matter more than entry terms. The "what happens if we want out" clauses determine your real flexibility. Negotiate exits before signing; you can't renegotiate them later.
Limitation of Liability Check
9/20<task>Analyze limitation of liability provisions</task> <contract>[paste]</contract> <deal_value>[describe]</deal_value> <output> 1. Liability caps (per incident? Aggregate?) 2. What's excluded from the cap (often indemnification, confidentiality, IP) 3. Consequential damages waivers 4. Mutuality check 5. Whether caps are reasonable given deal economics 6. Industry benchmarks for this type of deal 7. Negotiation priorities </output>
Analyzes liability limits with caps, exclusions, consequential damages, mutuality, and benchmarks.
Pro tip: Liability caps are often set at "fees paid" — laughably low for deals where breach could cost millions. Push for higher caps on revenue-generating contracts. The ask is reasonable; people underuse it.
Most Favored Nation Clauses
10/20<task>Analyze MFN provisions</task> <contract>[paste]</contract> <output> 1. Identify MFN clauses (may be disguised as "most favorable terms") 2. Scope of MFN (pricing only? Or broader?) 3. Trigger mechanism 4. Audit rights for compliance 5. Whether MFN is enforceable in practice 6. Commercial implications (future deals will be constrained) 7. Negotiation strategies to narrow or eliminate </output>
Analyzes MFN clauses with scope, triggers, audit rights, enforceability, and narrowing strategies.
Pro tip: MFN clauses constrain your future pricing flexibility. Accepting them for small deals locks you into pricing discipline you may regret. Always cap them narrowly or reject outright unless deal economics demand it.
Research & Memos
5 promptsLegal Research Memo
11/20<role>Associate preparing a research memo for a partner</role> <task>Research [legal question] and prepare memo</task> <context>[client situation, jurisdiction, relevant facts]</context> <memo_structure> 1. Question Presented 2. Brief Answer 3. Statement of Facts 4. Discussion (analyzing relevant case law, statutes, rules) 5. Conclusion 6. Recommendations </memo_structure> <constraints>Flag where current research is needed (cases, statutes). Never fabricate citations. Mark any specific case citations as "verify before use."</constraints>
Prepares IRAC-style legal research memos with mandatory citation verification flags.
Pro tip: Claude does NOT reliably cite specific cases — it can hallucinate case names and citations. Use it to structure reasoning and outline arguments, but ALWAYS verify citations against actual legal databases (Westlaw, Lexis). Never file AI-cited documents.
Case Law Summary
12/20<task>Summarize this case for legal work</task> <case>[paste opinion or citation]</case> <purpose>[how we intend to use it]</purpose> <output> 1. Procedural posture 2. Facts (focused on relevant issues) 3. Issues presented 4. Holdings 5. Reasoning (key to how it applies to our situation) 6. How it applies to our client's situation 7. Distinguishable factors (how our case may differ) 8. Strength as precedent for our argument </output>
Summarizes case law with facts, holdings, reasoning, applicability, and distinguishing factors.
Pro tip: Claude can summarize cases you provide, but can't retrieve unknown ones. Paste the actual opinion text. For cases you only have a citation for, retrieve from Westlaw/Lexis first, then have Claude synthesize.
Statutory Analysis
13/20<task>Analyze this statute</task> <statute>[paste text]</statute> <scenario>[client scenario]</scenario> <output> 1. Plain reading of the statute 2. Key defined terms 3. Who is bound and for what 4. Exceptions and exclusions 5. Penalties for violation 6. Enforcement mechanism 7. How this applies to our specific scenario 8. Ambiguities requiring further research or interpretation </output>
Analyzes statutes with plain reading, definitions, scope, penalties, and scenario application.
Pro tip: Statutory analysis is where Claude's precision shines — breaking down dense regulatory language into understandable implications. Pair with regulatory guidance for a complete analysis.
Client Advisory Memo
14/20<task>Draft a client advisory memo on [topic]</task> <client>[describe — industry, size, risk tolerance]</client> <topic>[the legal issue or development]</topic> <output> 1. Executive summary (3-4 sentences) 2. Background (what changed or what the client needs to know) 3. Impact on the client's business 4. Recommended actions ranked by priority 5. Deadlines or time-sensitive elements 6. Cost/benefit of recommended actions 7. Next steps + contact </output> <voice>Practical, plain-language for a business audience. Not a legal brief.</voice>
Drafts client advisory memos with exec summary, business impact, prioritized actions, and plain-language tone.
Pro tip: Client memos that read like legal briefs lose clients. Business audiences want to know: "What changed? How does it hit me? What do I do?" Answer those in order — everything else is reference material.
Regulatory Compliance Map
15/20<task>Map regulatory compliance obligations for [business activity]</task> <business>[describe — industry, jurisdiction, activity]</business> <output> 1. Relevant regulatory regimes (federal, state, international) 2. Per regime: registration/licensing requirements, reporting obligations, operational requirements 3. Periodic obligations (annual filings, disclosures) 4. Triggers for enhanced scrutiny 5. Common compliance failures in this industry 6. Cost of non-compliance 7. Recommended compliance calendar </output>
Maps regulatory compliance with registration, reporting, calendars, and failure modes.
Pro tip: Regulatory compliance maps help spot obligations you didn't know existed. Industries often have overlapping federal and state requirements that vary by state. Maps prevent surprise enforcement actions.
Litigation & Dispute
5 promptsDemand Letter Draft
16/20<task>Draft a demand letter</task> <context> - Our client: [describe] - Opposing party: [describe] - Issue: [describe breach/wrong] - Damages: [describe + amount if known] - Prior communications: [describe] - Goal: [settlement, cease and desist, payment] </context> <output> - Professional but firm tone - Recital of facts - Statement of legal wrong - Demand (specific, with deadline) - Consequences of non-compliance - Opening for settlement discussion - Preservation demands (don't destroy evidence) </output>
Drafts demand letters with firm tone, specific demands, deadlines, and evidence preservation language.
Pro tip: Demand letters that work are specific and credible. Vague demands ("damages to be determined") get ignored. Specific dollar amounts + factual basis + legal theory + deadline create the seriousness that drives response.
Litigation Hold Notice
17/20<task>Draft a litigation hold notice</task> <context> - Anticipated litigation: [describe] - Custodians (who likely has relevant info): [list] - Types of documents: [email, texts, Slack, financial records, contracts, etc.] </context> <output> - Notice to each custodian - Clear explanation of preservation obligation - Specific types of documents and data sources to preserve - What NOT to delete or modify - Acknowledgment form - Escalation path for questions </output>
Drafts lit hold notices with custodian-specific instructions, data sources, and acknowledgment forms.
Pro tip: Litigation hold failures (spoliation) destroy cases and cost careers. A clear written hold notice, with acknowledgments, protects both the client and the firm. Send early, broadly, and follow up on acknowledgments.
Discovery Response Review
18/20<task>Review these discovery responses</task> <responses>[paste]</responses> <our_requests>[paste]</our_requests> <output> 1. Objections — valid or overly broad? 2. Responses that are incomplete 3. Documents referenced but not produced 4. Privilege claims — adequately supported? 5. Follow-up requests to issue 6. Motion to compel assessment 7. Overall assessment of opposing party's transparency </output>
Reviews discovery responses with objection analysis, completeness, privilege review, and motion-to-compel assessment.
Pro tip: Discovery response review is time-intensive but high-leverage work. Claude can speed up the first pass, flagging patterns a human would notice but slowly. Always verify findings before motion practice.
Deposition Prep Outline
19/20<task>Create a deposition prep outline</task> <deponent>[describe — role, relationship to case]</deponent> <topics>[key topics to cover]</topics> <documents>[key documents to use]</documents> <output> 1. Opening admonitions and background questions 2. Topic-by-topic question outline 3. Per topic: anticipated answers + follow-up questions 4. Documents to mark as exhibits and when to introduce 5. Impeachment material (if applicable) 6. Traps to avoid (leading, compound, vague questions) 7. Budget of time per topic </output>
Builds deposition outlines with topic structure, follow-ups, exhibits, impeachment, and time budget.
Pro tip: Over-prepared depositions meander; under-prepared depositions miss the key answer. A tight outline with time budgets per topic keeps deposition on track. Deposition wins come from discipline, not cleverness.
Settlement Proposal
20/20<task>Draft a settlement proposal</task> <case>[describe]</case> <our_position>[damages sought + leverage]</our_position> <opposing_position>[their likely position]</opposing_position> <output> 1. Offer structure (monetary + non-monetary terms) 2. Walk-away number 3. Anchor opening number with reasoning 4. Non-monetary concessions we could offer 5. Conditions and deadlines 6. Confidentiality + non-disparagement terms 7. Release language 8. Response strategy for their counter </output>
Drafts settlement proposals with structure, anchor, walk-away, non-monetary terms, and counter-response strategy.
Pro tip: Settlement proposals that work include non-monetary terms you can use as trading chips. Pure dollar demands get haggled down; bundled offers (dollars + restructured IP + references) preserve value on both sides.
Frequently Asked Questions
Prompts are the starting line. Tutorials are the finish.
A growing library of 300+ hands-on tutorials on ChatGPT, Claude, Midjourney, and 50+ AI tools. New tutorials added every week.
7-day free trial. Cancel anytime.