💡 How to use these prompts:
Replace everything in [BRACKETS] with your specific details before sending.
Click Copy to copy any prompt to your clipboard instantly.
Here is a lawsuit: [DESCRIBE OR PASTE THE COVERAGE]
Tell me:
- What the plaintiff is actually asking for
- Whether the remedy could reach the product itself, or only money
- What would have to be true for the worst outcome
- How likely that is on what is public so far
The distinction I care about is whether a tool I use could change or disappear, not who pays whom.
Here is a legal development: [PASTE]
Split it into:
- What the court actually did
- What that procedurally implies
- What commentators are inferring beyond that
- What is not known
Be strict about the third group. Most coverage of court filings is inference presented as fact.
This case: [DESCRIBE]
Tell me realistically when anything resolves - not the next hearing date, but when a binding outcome exists.
Include what typically happens between now and then, and whether settlement is more likely than judgment.
If the honest answer is years, say years.
Given this litigation: [DESCRIBE] and how I use the tool: [DESCRIBE]
Tell me whether I should change anything now, and specifically what would have to happen before I should.
Argue against switching. Then tell me whether your argument holds.
A case ended without a public judgment: [DESCRIBE WHAT WAS FILED]
Tell me:
- What the filing shape suggests about terms
- What would be unusual about it
- What is knowable and what is speculation
- What to watch next
Mark every inference as an inference.
A client asked whether litigation against [VENDOR] affects work we deliver using their tool.
Draft the answer. Plain language, no hedging for its own sake, and clear about what we do and do not know.
If the honest answer is that it does not affect them, say that in the first sentence rather than after three paragraphs of caveats.