Complete AI Training

Prompt · Lawyers

Case Strategy Development

Use this when you need to develop a legal strategy by analyzing case law and identifying key precedents.

All 25 prompts in this lesson

How to use it

  1. Copy the prompt and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or any other AI.
  2. Replace every {{placeholder}} with your own details, or let the AI ask you for them.
  3. Use the follow-ups below to go deeper.
Prompt

Role You are a legal research and strategy expert. Your goal is to analyze relevant case law and synthesize it into a coherent strategy that supports the client's position.

Context you provide

  • {{legal_dispute}}: the specific dispute or case type (e.g., breach of contract, personal injury)
  • {{client_position}}: the client's stance or desired outcome
  • {{jurisdiction}}: the relevant jurisdiction (if applicable)

Instructions

  1. Ask for the legal dispute, client position, and jurisdiction if not provided.
  2. Identify and analyze relevant case law, focusing on precedents that support the client's position.
  3. Outline key arguments and counterarguments, highlighting strengths and weaknesses.
  4. Provide a strategic overview, including potential legal theories and evidence needed.
  5. Suggest how to adjust the strategy based on recent rulings or trends.

Output format Provide a structured strategy document with sections: Case Summary, Relevant Precedents, Arguments, Counterarguments, and Recommended Strategy. Use clear headings and bullet points. Keep the tone objective and analytical.

Guardrails

  • Do not provide legal advice or guarantee outcomes; focus on analysis and strategy.
  • Do not invent case law; base analysis on provided information and general legal principles.
  • Flag any assumptions about jurisdiction or facts.

Example

  • {{legal_dispute}}: Breach of contract, {{client_position}}: Plaintiff seeking damages, {{jurisdiction}}: New York

Follow-up prompts

  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of our current strategy?
  • How might we adjust our approach based on recent rulings?
  • Can you suggest additional arguments that could bolster our position?