Claude for Legal: Precision Without Hallucinations

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>