ChatGPT can be effective for legal drafting, generating summaries, and preparing research outlines. But only if you know how to talk to it.
Thousands of lawyers now use ChatGPT daily for legal work. But they don’t just type random requests and hope for the best. They use proven prompt formulas refined through real-world practice.
This article shares battle-tested ChatGPT prompts that can generate first-draft legal documents in minutes and streamline contract review workflows. While you still need to review its output, you won't be staring at a blank page to get started.
Key Takeaways
ChatGPT is most effective when treated like a paralegal who needs clear instructions and context.
Proven prompt structures can reduce routine document preparation time while improving clarity and consistency.
Effective prompts can generate useful first drafts, but every ChatGPT output requires independent verification.
Contract Review Prompts Lawyers Actually Use
If contract review is taking up your week, these prompts will feel like a gift. Use these when you're staring down a vendor agreement at 4 p.m. or trying to spot risks in a 50-page services contract.
Prompt 1: The Complete Contract Overview (Used by Transactional Lawyers)
Analyze this [contract type] governed by [jurisdiction] law. Identify 'killer' clauses and check for consistency with the term sheet.
Provide a comprehensive summary organized as follows:
Parties and their roles
Key business terms (scope, price, duration)
Material obligations for each party
Termination rights and conditions
Liability allocation and caps
Notable provisions (unusual terms, missing standard clauses)
Potential risks or red flags
Format as a table with columns for: Provision Category, Details, and Risk Level (Low/Medium/High).
What this does: This prompt provides the structured overview transactional lawyers need when first receiving a contract from opposing counsel or taking over a matter from another attorney. It extracts key terms from complex contracts and organizes them for efficient review
Prompt 2: The Risk Spotter (Used by In-House Counsel)
You are in-house counsel for [company type/industry]. Review this [type of contract] and identify all provisions that create:
Financial liability or exposure above $[amount]
Operational restrictions that could limit business flexibility
For each risk, explain the business impact and suggest mitigation language.
What this does: This is the prompt in-house lawyers use when juggling dozens of contracts and need to triage quickly. The prompt analyzes legal issues across jurisdictions while focusing on business impact rather than legal technicalities.
Prompt 3: The Negotiation Position Analyzer (Used by Deal Lawyers)
Analyze this [type of contract] to assess negotiation leverage:
Which provisions heavily favor our side vs. the counterparty?
What are the top 3 negotiation priorities based on risk exposure?
Which terms are likely deal-breakers vs. negotiable?
What alternative language could we propose for problematic clauses?
Where does the other party have leverage we need to acknowledge?
Present findings as a negotiation roadmap with "Must Win," "Should Win," and "Can Concede" categories.
What this does: Lawyers use this before negotiation calls to quickly understand leverage points. It supports legal strategy development by surfacing provisions that matter most and those where compromise makes sense.
Prompt 4: The Contract Gap Analysis (Used by Corporate Teams)
Compare this [contract type] against our firm's attached '[contract type Template' for [industry/deal type]. Identify:
Missing provisions
Provisions present but inadequately detailed
Absent protections
Clauses that deviate from the template
Recommend specific additions or modifications to align the contract with our standard template.
What this does: Corporate counsel use this before approving contracts to ensure all necessary protections are included. This is especially useful for reviewing vendor-drafted agreements that may omit client-favorable terms.
Legal Research Prompts from Practicing Attorneys
ChatGPT cannot replace Westlaw or Lexis. But it can create structured legal research outlines that help organize your thinking before diving into sources. It's like having someone sketch out the research map, so you're not figuring out the structure as you go.
Prompt 5: The Issue Research Framework (Used by Litigation Associates)
Research [issue] under [Specific State] Revised Statutes Chapter [X]."
Key facts: [2-3 sentence summary]
Provide:
Applicable legal standard and source
The majority view and supporting authority
Minority positions (if any)
Jurisdictional splits or circuit conflicts
Analogous cases with similar fact patterns
Practical application to these facts
Potential counterarguments
Flag any unsettled areas or conflicting authority.
What this does: Associates use this to get research organized before diving into Westlaw/Lexis for verification. It can identify relevant case law and precedents as starting points, though every citation must be independently verified.
Prompt 6: The Memo First Draft Generator (Used by Law Firm Associates)
Draft a legal memorandum analyzing: [issue]
Format: IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion)
Jurisdiction: [specify]
Key facts: [brief summary]
Applicable law: [statutes/case law if known]
Structure the memo with:
Brief issue statement
Governing legal standard with citations
Application of law to facts (step-by-step analysis)
Counterarguments and responses
Conclusion with confidence level (strong/moderate/weak)
Write in formal legal memo style, approximately [word count].
What this does: This prompt generates citation-formatted legal writing that associates and then refines with verified research. It overcomes blank-page paralysis by creating structure, though all citations and legal standards must be checked before relying on the output.
Document Drafting Prompts Lawyers Depend On
With sufficient context, ChatGPT can generate practice-area-specific document templates that practicing lawyers can customize and finalize. You'll still tighten everything for your specific case theory, but the coverage check alone saves time.
Prompt 7: The Legal Standard Framework Prompt (Used by Litigators)
Act as a senior litigation associate. Draft the 'Legal Standard' section for a [Motion Type, e.g., Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim] pursuant to [Specific Rule, e.g., FRCP 12(b)(6)].
Jurisdiction: [Specify Court, e.g., Southern District of New York]
Governing Authority: Focus on the standard established by [e.g., Twombly and Iqbal] and relevant circuit-specific precedents regarding the 'plausibility' requirement.
Requirements:
Provide a concise, neutral statement of the burden of proof.
Include the standard for how the court must treat well-pleaded factual allegations vs. legal conclusions.
Format citations in [Bluebook/Local Rule] style.
Do not draft a 'Statement of Facts' or 'Argument' section. Do not attempt to apply the law to specific facts. Provide only the governing legal framework.
What this does: Using AI for this saves 30 minutes of "copy-pasting and formatting" while letting the lawyer focus on the actual argument.
Prompt 8: The Discovery Request Builder (Used by Litigation Teams)
Draft [interrogatories/requests for production/requests for admission] for a [case type] lawsuit.
Case theory: [brief explanation]
Information needed: [specific categories]
Legal Standard: All requests must comply with the scope defined in FRCP Rule 26(b)(1). Ensure every request is proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake and whether the burden of the discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Create [number] requests that:
Are specific enough to be enforceable
Cover all relevant information categories
Comply with proportionality standards
Avoid overly broad or harassing requests
Follow [jurisdiction]'s discovery rules
Organize by topic with clear instructions to the responding party.
What this does: This prompt generates discovery request templates that ensure comprehensive coverage. Lawyers then edit to focus on strategy and avoid overreach.
Client Communication Prompts Legal Professionals Use Daily
Much of legal practice runs on clear, steady communication. But no one wants to spend 45 minutes on a status update email. These prompts help lawyers handle routine client correspondence efficiently while keeping tone, professionalism, and judgment firmly in human hands.
Prompt 9: The Client Update Email (Used Across All Practice Areas)
Draft a client status update email for [client type: sophisticated GC/individual client/small business owner].
Tone: [professional and reassuring/formal/casual-professional]
Include:
[Recent development 1]
[Recent development 2]
Next steps and timeline
Action items (if any) for client
Offer to discuss via call
Length: [3-4 paragraphs/brief/detailed]
Close with: [invitation to discuss/confirmation of next meeting/etc.]
What this does: Lawyers use this for routine status updates, freeing time for complex client counseling. The prompt drafts client-ready correspondence quickly while maintaining the appropriate tone for each relationship.
Prompt 10: The Professional Response Template (Used by Busy Practitioners)
Draft a professional response to: [email/letter/request]
Recipient: [opposing counsel/client/court/third party]
Key points to address: [list]
Tone: [firm but diplomatic/neutral and factual/cordial]
Purpose: [inform/decline/accept/request extension/etc.]
Length: [brief/moderate/detailed]
Include any necessary caveats about [privilege/without prejudice/etc.]
What this does: Lawyers use this to respond to routine inquiries quickly, reserving time for complex substantive matters. It enhances the clarity and precision of legal writing while maintaining appropriate boundaries.
Time-Saving Administrative and Practice Management Prompts
Not every hour in legal practice is spent on doctrine or strategy. These prompts help lawyers manage administrative work (notes, checklists, deadlines) that quietly consume time but must be done accurately.
Prompt 11: The Meeting Summary Generator (Used by All Practice Areas)
Convert these meeting notes into a professional summary:
[Paste raw notes or bullet points]
Format for: [internal file memo/client summary/team distribution]
Include:
Meeting date and participants
Key topics discussed
Decisions made
Action items (assign to specific people with deadlines)
Next steps
Tone: [professional/formal/internal-casual]
What this does: Lawyers use this immediately after client calls or internal meetings to quickly generate organized notes while details are fresh, rather than spending 20 minutes formatting notes. It converts complex legal language into plain English for client-facing summaries.
Prompt 12: The Compliance Checklist Generator (Used by Regulatory and Compliance Lawyers)
Create a comprehensive compliance checklist for [regulation/requirement].
Format as a table with a checkbox column for tracking.
What this does: This prompt creates legal checklists that compliance counsel use when new regulations take effect or during compliance audits, saving hours of checklist development.
Prompt 13: The Deadline and Obligation Tracker (Used by Litigation and Transactional Teams)
Extract all deadlines, obligations, and key dates from this [contract/court order/settlement agreement].
Create an organized list including:
All specific deadlines with dates
Ongoing obligations and their frequency
Contingent obligations and triggering events
Notice requirements and timing
Action items with responsible parties
Format as a chronological timeline with categorization by obligation type.
What this does: Lawyers use this when taking over matters, reviewing complex agreements, and ensuring nothing falls through the cracks. This creates a master timeline from document text, accelerating legal research and drafting tasks.
Advanced ChatGPT Prompts from Experienced Legal Users
These sophisticated prompts reflect how experienced lawyers use ChatGPT to stress-test ideas, compare documents, and think through complex legal problems. Once the basics are familiar, more advanced prompting unlocks deeper analysis.
Prompt 14: The Multi-Contract Comparison (Used by Corporate Counsel)
Compare these [number] contracts for [contract type]:
[Paste or upload contracts]
Analyze and report:
Standard terms that appear across all contracts
Provisions that vary between contracts (highlight deviations)
Most favorable terms for [our company], and which contract contains them
Least favorable terms and suggested improvements
Missing provisions that should be standardized
Recommendations for template language
Present as a comparison matrix with findings summary.
What this does: Corporate counsel use this when managing vendor portfolios or conducting M&A due diligence on the target's contracts. It summarizes lengthy case law and statutes efficiently while spotting patterns across multiple documents.
Prompt 15: The Strategic Issue Analysis (Used by Senior Associates)
Analyze this situation from three perspectives:
[Provide fact pattern]
As counsel for [Client]: Identify strongest claims, defenses, and strategic advantages
As opposing counsel: Identify our weaknesses and their best arguments
As the judge: Assess the likely outcome and evaluate both sides' positions
For each perspective, provide:
Key legal and factual issues
Strongest arguments
Vulnerabilities
Strategic considerations
Recommended approach
Conclude with an overall risk assessment and strategy recommendation.
What this does: Use it to brainstorm all angles of a matter before developing a final strategy. It provides jurisdiction-specific legal analysis when properly prompted with applicable law.
Prompt 16: The Clause Library Builder (Used by Transactional Teams)
Generate [number] variations of a [clause type] for [contract type] governed by [jurisdiction] law.
Create versions with different risk allocations:
Client-favorable (maximum protection)
Balanced/market-standard
Counterparty-favorable (used when we have limited leverage)
For each variation:
Explain the risk allocation
Note key protective language
Identify when to use this version
Include optional add-ons for special situations.
What this does: Lawyers building internal clause libraries use this to create starting-point options, then refine them based on firm experience and specific client needs.
Best Practices Lawyers Follow When Using ChatGPT
Lawyers who get consistent value from ChatGPT don’t treat it like magic. They treat it like a capable first-draft engine that moves quickly, requires supervision, and occasionally sounds confident while being wrong.
Always Verify Legal Content and Citations Independently: ChatGPT can summarize and draft documents quickly, but it doesn’t assume responsibility for accuracy. Every citation, every legal standard, every factual assertion must be checked before you rely on it.
Anonymize Client Information in All Prompts: Unless you're using enterprise ChatGPT with appropriate opt-out settings for data handling, anonymize by default. Use placeholders (“Company A,” “Customer,” “the employee”) and remove deal terms, names, and identifiers.
Treat ChatGPT as a Helpful Paralegal, Not a Final Authority: Prompt like you’re delegating. Include jurisdiction, procedural posture, purpose, and output format. You get first drafts and research starting points, not finished work product. Your legal training and judgment remain the final filter.
Save Effective Prompts for Reuse: When a prompt produces exactly what you need, bookmark it and build a personal prompt library. The whole point is repeatable efficiency.
Iterate and Refine Prompts Based on Output Quality: Iterate, don't give up. If the first output isn't right, adjust your prompt. ChatGPT responds well to "that's close, but focus more on X."
Document Your AI-Assisted Work Process: Adopt a simple habit: when you use AI, document your assumptions and verification steps. Note it in your work product. It’s the easiest way to support ethical, compliant use of AI. Transparency now protects you later.
Common Mistakes Lawyers Make with ChatGPT (And How to Avoid Them)
Most ChatGPT problems in legal work aren’t caused by the tool. They’re caused by lawyers using it the way they’d use a search bar. Lessons have been learned from lawyers who've made these mistakes in practice and, in some cases, faced consequences. The good news is that the mistakes are predictable and preventable.
Trusting ChatGPT Citations without Verification (The Mata v. Avianca Mistake) The Mata v. Avianca case is now the cautionary tale every litigator knows: fabricated cases generated by ChatGPT, confident tone, real consequences. Many courts have since issued specific Standing Orders (e.g., in the Fifth Circuit and various District Courts) requiring a formal "AI Disclosure" or "Certification of Human Review." Check local court rules for these mandatory disclosures and verify every citation independently before filing court documents.
Including Confidential Client Details in Prompts What you type into ChatGPT may not be protected by attorney-client privilege unless you use enterprise-grade tools with 'Opt-Out' data training policies. Anonymize everything. However, using the free version of consumer ChatGPT for even "anonymized" work is increasingly viewed as a risk as law firm increasingly move toward "Zero-Data Retention" (ZDR) environments.
Using Vague Prompts and Expecting Specific Results "Draft a contract" produces garbage. "Draft a mutual NDA for two SaaS companies under Delaware law with a 2-year confidentiality term and standard carve-outs" produces a usable first draft.
Accepting First Output Without Iteration ChatGPT improves with follow-up prompts. If the first draft is not quite right, refine your instructions rather than starting over.
Forgetting to Specify Jurisdiction and Applicable Law Without knowing the appropriate jurisdiction, ChatGPT defaults to generic or majority-rule analysis. Always specify the governing law.
Relying on ChatGPT for Strategic Legal Judgments ChatGPT may identify potential legal issues in a contract, but it can't assess whether to file a motion, accept a settlement, or pursue a particular strategy. That judgment remains yours.
Skipping Professional Review Before Client Delivery Every AI-generated output needs attorney review before it reaches a client or court. No exceptions, even for "simple" communications.
How Spellbook Eliminates Prompting Complexity for Lawyers
While ChatGPT can be powerful, it requires lawyers to learn a new skill: prompt engineering. Spellbook removes that burden by building legal intelligence directly into the workflows lawyers already use every day.
No prompting required for contract work: Open a contract in Microsoft Word and ask questions in plain language. No trial and error needed.
Legal-specific training: Understands contract structures, clause logic, and market norms without lengthy explanations.
Context-aware analysis: Reviews clauses in context, not isolation. Outputs are grounded in the actual agreement.
Secure, closed system: Designed to protect attorney-client privilege. Data is never used to train public models.
Microsoft Word integration: Native Word integration: Legal insights appear in the document where drafting and review already happen, not in a separate interface.
Skip the prompt engineering learning curve. Spellbook gets you there faster and with better security from day one. Start your 7-day free trial today.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is ChatGPT Free for Lawyers to Use Professionally?
Yes and no. ChatGPT offers a free version with limited capabilities, but professional use typically requires ChatGPT Plus ($20/month) for access to more advanced reasoning. Law firms often opt for ChatGPT Team or Enterprise plans, which offer better data handling and administrative controls.
Can I Trust ChatGPT's Legal Research and Case Citations?
No. ChatGPT can hallucinate cases, fabricate citations, and misstate holdings while sounding completely confident. Every citation must be independently verified in Westlaw, Lexis, or an official reporter before it is relied on. Use ChatGPT for research organization and initial analysis, never as a sole source.
How Do I Protect Client Confidentiality when Using ChatGPT?
Always anonymize information (unless you're using enterprise ChatGPT with proper data protection agreements). Use placeholders like "Company A," "the client," or "the plaintiff" instead of actual names. Remove identifying details like specific dates, locations, or unique facts.
Can Using ChatGPT Get Me in Trouble with My State Bar?
No. Using AI itself isn't an ethics violation, but improper use can violate obligations related to competence, confidentiality, supervision, and candor. The real risks are: filing fabricated citations (competence/candor), exposing client confidences (confidentiality), or failing to supervise AI outputs (supervision). Use ChatGPT as a tool, verify everything, and maintain professional judgment.
.jpeg)
.png)
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=icon}
