Legal Prompt
Generator.
Free, jurisdiction-aware prompts for contract review, briefs, legal research, NDAs, demand letters, deposition outlines, and playbooks.
All output is a first draft requiring licensed-attorney review. Citations flagged for verification. Assumptions explicitly tagged.
Not legal advice.
This tool produces prompts that help licensed attorneys draft faster. It does not provide legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and is not a substitute for licensed counsel. Any output must be reviewed by a licensed attorney in the applicable jurisdiction before use. LLMs can fabricate case citations, every citation in output must be independently verified.
Produce a contract review (summarize + redline) for an attorney. JURISDICTION: United States, federal AUDIENCE: Business stakeholder MATTER: [matter not specified, infer reasonable defaults and flag assumptions] PARTY CONTEXT: [party context not specified, treat as sophisticated commercial parties unless otherwise indicated] RISK POSTURE: risk-balanced, flag high-risk items clearly but don't over-negotiate low-risk boilerplate STRUCTURE: 1) Executive summary (1 paragraph), what this contract is, who benefits, top 3 risk flags. 2) Defined terms to confirm or fix. 3) Clause-by-clause review table: clause name, what it says in plain English, risk rating (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), recommended change (with suggested redline). 4) Missing clauses to add. 5) Open questions for the counterparty. 6) Negotiation priority list (must-have / nice-to-have / give-away). CONSTRAINTS: - no legal advice conclusions without noting the need for licensed-attorney review - Cite specific statutes/cases by name and section where applicable; flag "[verify citation]" if uncertain. - Flag any assumption with "[assumption, confirm]". DISCLAIMER (include at top of output): Output is a draft for a licensed attorney to review. It is NOT legal advice. Do not use without attorney review and jurisdictional verification. Deliver the document only.
Role: a senior US practitioner known for contract review (summarize + redline) work that partners sign off on in one pass. TASK: Produce a contract review (summarize + redline). MATTER: [matter not specified, infer reasonable defaults and flag assumptions] JURISDICTION: United States, federal AUDIENCE: Business stakeholder PARTY CONTEXT: [party context not specified, treat as sophisticated commercial parties unless otherwise indicated] RISK POSTURE: risk-balanced, flag high-risk items clearly but don't over-negotiate low-risk boilerplate REQUIRED STRUCTURE: 1) Executive summary (1 paragraph), what this contract is, who benefits, top 3 risk flags. 2) Defined terms to confirm or fix. 3) Clause-by-clause review table: clause name, what it says in plain English, risk rating (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), recommended change (with suggested redline). 4) Missing clauses to add. 5) Open questions for the counterparty. 6) Negotiation priority list (must-have / nice-to-have / give-away). DRAFTING PROCESS: 1. Draft the document. 2. Re-read as the business stakeholder. What's the single weakest section? 3. Rewrite that section with a citation, proof point, or tighter argument. 4. Tag every factual assumption "[assumption, confirm]" and every citation "[verify]" if you can't recall the exact pin cite. 5. Output only the final version. CONSTRAINTS: no legal advice conclusions without noting the need for licensed-attorney review DISCLAIMER (include at top): Output is a draft for a licensed attorney to review. It is NOT legal advice. Do not use without attorney review and jurisdictional verification.
Role: a senior attorney with deep experience in United States, federal known for contract review (summarize + redline) work that holds up under adversarial scrutiny. TASK: Produce a contract review (summarize + redline) covering the matter described below, suitable for business stakeholder. MATTER: [matter not specified, infer reasonable defaults and flag assumptions] PARTY CONTEXT: [party context not specified, treat as sophisticated commercial parties unless otherwise indicated] RISK POSTURE: risk-balanced, flag high-risk items clearly but don't over-negotiate low-risk boilerplate REQUIRED STRUCTURE: 1) Executive summary (1 paragraph), what this contract is, who benefits, top 3 risk flags. 2) Defined terms to confirm or fix. 3) Clause-by-clause review table: clause name, what it says in plain English, risk rating (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), recommended change (with suggested redline). 4) Missing clauses to add. 5) Open questions for the counterparty. 6) Negotiation priority list (must-have / nice-to-have / give-away). RULES OF THE HOUSE: - no legal advice conclusions without noting the need for licensed-attorney review - Cite statutes and cases with specificity; any citation you can't verify from memory must be tagged "[verify citation]". - Every factual assumption must be tagged "[assumption, confirm with client]". - Every jurisdiction-specific point must name the jurisdiction in-line. - No hedging adverbs where the law is clear; no overconfident assertions where it isn't. DELIVERABLE: 1. The final document following the structure above. 2. A "Key risks & trade-offs" section (3-5 bullets), what this position exposes the client to and what alternatives were considered. 3. A "Questions opposing counsel will likely raise" list (3-5 questions) with a one-line response strategy for each. 4. An "Open questions for the client" list of facts that would sharpen the analysis. DISCLAIMER (must appear at the top of output): Output is a draft for a licensed attorney to review. It is NOT legal advice. Do not use without attorney review and jurisdictional verification.
10 task blueprints
Structured scaffolds for common legal work.
Contract review
Executive summary, defined-terms check, clause-by-clause risk-rated table with redlines, missing clauses, counterparty questions, negotiation priority list.
Clause analysis
Full clause + plain-English translation + who it favors + market positions + red flags + 3 alternative wordings.
NDA review
Term, CI definition scope, permitted disclosures, remedies, return obligations, non-solicit creep, governing law, walk-away clauses.
Brief / motion
Question presented, short answer, facts, standard of review, argument with affirmative-claim headings, conclusion, cite checklist.
Legal research memo
Rule → application → counter-arguments → resolution. Pin cites for every authority. Practical client recommendation.
Client advisory memo
Plain-English situation, legal framework, application to client's facts, recommendation with rationale, risks of inaction.
Privacy / compliance
Data scope, applicable frameworks (GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA), gap analysis, required actions with owners and dates, ongoing obligations calendar.
Demand letter
Facts, legal basis, specific demand with deadline, consequences, reservation of rights. Tone calibrated to likelihood of litigation.
Deposition outline
Ground rules, background, topic ladders (opening → follow-up → impeachment), exhibits, admissions to lock in, closing.
Safety rails
How this handles the risks of AI in legal work.
LLMs hallucinate case law. Every prompt instructs the model to flag uncertain citations with '[verify citation]', the output forces you to verify before use.
Every factual assumption the model makes is tagged '[assumption, confirm]' so it's obvious what still needs client or counterparty input.
Every prompt injects an attorney-review disclaimer at the top of the output. The LLM preserves it. No output claims to be legal advice.
Related free tools
Other generators you might use alongside.
Business Prompt Generator
Marketing, sales, ops, finance, HR, strategy.
Financial Analysis Prompts
DCF, valuation, variance, SaaS metrics, ratios.
ChatGPT Prompt Generator
General RGC-structured prompts for any LLM.
Perplexity Prompt Generator
Source-cited deep research, great for legal research.
FAQ
Questions about the legal prompt generator.
Is this a replacement for a lawyer?+
No. Absolutely not. This tool generates structured prompts that help a licensed attorney produce first drafts faster. All output should be reviewed by a licensed attorney in the applicable jurisdiction before any use. Every prompt includes a mandatory attorney-review disclaimer that the LLM will preserve in its output.
Is it free?+
Yes. 100% free, no login, no rate limit. The generator runs entirely in your browser, nothing is saved to a server, and your matter description is never transmitted except to whichever LLM you choose to paste the prompt into.
What legal tasks does it cover?+
Ten common tasks: contract review, clause analysis, NDA review, brief/motion outlines, legal research memos, client advisory memos, privacy/compliance checklists, demand letters, deposition question outlines, and negotiation playbooks.
How does jurisdiction work?+
The generator supports US federal, US state (with specific state input), UK, EU, Canada, Australia, India, Singapore, and other jurisdictions. The jurisdiction is embedded in the prompt so the LLM knows to reference the correct legal framework. You still need to verify jurisdictional accuracy with a licensed attorney.
How are citations handled?+
The prompts explicitly instruct the LLM to tag any citation it isn't confident in as '[verify citation]', because LLMs are known to hallucinate case law. Every cited case, statute, or regulation in the output must be verified before use. This is a first-draft tool, not a research tool.
Can I use this for client matters?+
The prompts are designed to be usable by practitioners on real matters, but the output is always a first draft requiring attorney review. Never send generated content to a counterparty, client, or court without review by a licensed attorney.
What makes these prompts different from just asking ChatGPT?+
Structure. Instead of 'review this contract,' the generator produces a prompt with: executive summary, defined terms, clause-by-clause review table, missing clauses, open questions, and a prioritized negotiation list. Each task has a senior-practitioner scaffold. Variants 2 and 3 add revision passes and 'questions opposing counsel will raise' lists.