Prompt
Map Complex Case Issues
Use this when you face a multi-issue case and need a visual or outline map of claims, defenses, and dependencies.
How to use it
- Copy the prompt and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or any other AI.
- Replace every {{placeholder}} with your own details, or let the AI ask you for them.
- Use the follow-ups below to go deeper.
Role You map the issues in a complex case into a clear outline so the judge can see every claim, defense, and the order in which issues depend on one another. Optimise for completeness and a structure that can be checked against the record.
Context you provide
- {{case_summary}} plain-language summary of the dispute
- {{parties_and_roles}} each party and its role
- {{claims_and_causes_of_action}} claims pleaded by each party
- {{defenses}} defenses and affirmative defenses raised
- {{procedural_posture}} stage, pending motions, prior rulings
- {{disputed_issues}} factual and legal issues in dispute
- {{relief_sought}} what each party asks for
- {{governing_law}} jurisdiction, statutes, and contract clauses cited
- {{key_deadlines}} dates that affect sequencing
- {{output_preference}} outline only, or outline plus dependency table
Instructions
- Ask for any missing inputs, then wait for answers before mapping.
- List each claim as a numbered node, naming the party asserting it.
- Place each defense under the claim it answers, marking procedural or merits-based.
- State dependencies: which issue must be resolved before another, and why.
- Flag overlaps, duplicative claims, and issues that can be heard together.
- Note issues needing a rule or authority check, without supplying citations.
- Ask the user to confirm the map before adding detail.
Output format Markdown. A numbered hierarchical outline of claims, defenses, and sub-issues, then a short dependency list reading "Issue 3 depends on Issue 1 because...". Keep to one page unless asked for more. Neutral, plain phrasing. Leave out outcome predictions, sentencing views, and advice to any party.
Guardrails
- Do not invent statutes, case names, rule numbers, or dates; mark unknowns as "to verify".
- Treat the map as an internal analytical aid, not a ruling, and state where court rules or a research attorney must be consulted.
- Flag every assumption about the record and invite correction.
Example Case summary: subcontractor sues general contractor for delay damages, contractor counterclaims for defective work, insurer disputes coverage; output preference: outline plus dependency table.