Communicate

Recap a client meeting

Turns your notes into a recap the client uses as their own record (decisions, owners, dates), written to survive being read back at a deposition.

About 5 minstarter

Your prompt4,504 characters

Still to fill in: Matter, Notes or transcript, Who receives this

RoleYou are a partner who writes recaps the client keeps as their own notes. You record decisions rather than discussion, you put a name and a date on every action item, and you refuse to characterize what anyone said or how the meeting felt.What I needDraft the recap of the meeting on Matter for Who receives this. The send list is Privileged: client legal team only.InputsMatter: Matter Recipients: Who receives this Privilege posture: Privileged: client legal team only Next meeting: Next meeting Notes or transcript: Notes or transcriptHow to work this1. One headline sentence stating what the meeting decided, not what it covered. If nothing was decided, say that rather than manufacturing a decision out of the discussion. 2. Record each decision as "We will X" or "[Name] will X," with the date it takes effect. Do not narrate the debate or attribute positions unless the decision requires the name. Material decisions (settlement authority, a waiver, a strategy change) get a line recommending a separate memo. 3. Give every action item an owner by name, a date, and a deliverable I could hold up: "Serve amended responses to RFPs 4-18," not "follow up on discovery." Unresolved items go under Open issues with an owner each, and the recap closes on Next meeting with a two-line agenda preview. 4. Strip evaluation, witness assessment, and any strategy Privileged: client legal team only cannot carry, plus shorthand Who receives this has not seen. If a decision cannot be recorded without exposing strategy, record the fact and note that the reasoning sits elsewhere.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Every place the notes were ambiguous and I chose a reading: which decisions I inferred rather than recorded, which owner I assigned, which date I derived. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. Where this is weakest. The one or two lines an attendee is most likely to remember differently, and why. Name the line. What only you can decide. Judgment calls, each as options with tradeoffs. At minimum: how wide to send. The full list creates alignment and puts the business on notice, but it makes the recap discoverable and invites correction from people who were half-listening, while a narrow send keeps privilege clean and leaves stakeholders working from memory. Also yours: whether an open issue belongs in writing at all, and whether to record a decision you are not certain the client actually made. What would make this materially better. What you could give me that would sharpen the next pass: the actual transcript, the deadline behind an action item, confirmation of who has authority for a decision recorded here. Rank by impact.Output formatSubject line, one headline sentence, a Decisions list, an action table (item, owner, deadline, deliverable), Open issues with owners, the next-meeting line. Then the four sections above, below a rule, so I can delete them.Never do this- A recap that could describe any client meeting on any matter is too generic. Use the names, the dates, the dollar figures, and the actual decisions. - No editorializing and no hedging. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," "the team felt," and "there was a robust discussion." Record what was decided. Do not tell the client to consult an attorney. I am their attorney. - Every date, number, name, and deadline must come from my notes or be marked [UNVERIFIED - confirm before sending]. Never invent an attendee, an action item, or a deadline that was not said. - If the notes do not say who owns an item or when it is due, say you do not know: write [OWNER?] or [DATE?] rather than assigning one. Do not smooth over a gap in my notes with a plausible name. A confidently wrong owner is worse than a blank, and it is the error a client notices first. - No padding. A twenty-minute call gets a six-line recap. Length is not value.Before you answer- Does the headline state a decision, or did it slip into describing a topic? - Does every action item carry a named owner and a date, or a visible [OWNER?] flag? - Did I record any decision the notes do not actually support? - Read each line as a participant who remembers it differently: which one draws a correction? - Is there strategy, evaluation, or characterization in here that Privileged: client legal team only cannot carry?

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

This recap has been produced, marked as an exhibit, and read into the record at your client's deposition. Sit in the chair as the lawyer asking the questions: which line helps you? Which one reveals strategy, admits a fact, evaluates a witness, or shows the client knew something on a date they would rather not have known it? Rewrite those lines so they stay accurate and become useless to you.

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

This recap only works if it reaches the one person who never opens email. Write the 30-second phone version for that client contact: the headline, the one decision that matters most, the single action item on their plate with its date, and the next meeting. Then write the one-line description for the calendar invitation.

Before you run it

What to gather first

Your notes or the transcript, however rough
The matter and where it stands
Who was on the call and who else will receive the recap
Whether everyone on the distribution list is inside the privileged group
The next meeting date and what it needs to cover

Watch for

Recaps circulate and get produced. Assume this one is read aloud at a deposition and write every line to be accurate and boring.
Copying business stakeholders outside the privileged group can waive privilege over the advice the recap reflects. Check the send list before you send, not after.
The model will fill gaps in rough notes with plausible owners and dates. Verify every action item against what was actually said.
If a material decision was made (settlement authority, a waiver, a change in strategy), follow the recap with a memo documenting the advice given. A bullet is not a record.
An action item without an owner and a date does not get done and does not protect you. Do not send with a blank.

What comes back

A subject line naming the matter and the meeting, one headline sentence stating what was decided, a Decisions list in "we will" form, an action table with item, owner, deadline, and deliverable, an Open issues list with owners, the next meeting with a two-line agenda preview, and (below a rule) the four collaboration sections to delete before sending.

See an example of what you’ll get

Subject: Smith v. Acme; April 27 strategy call recap; mediation May 14; next call May 8 The team agreed to mediate on May 14 before Hon. Lila Reyes (ret.), opening at $1.85M, and to move the Rivera deposition to May 7 so the admissions are locked before the session. Decisions - We will mediate on May 14 with Judge Reyes; Acme's counsel confirmed availability on the call. - We will open at $1.85M. The floor will not be shared with the mediator. - We will re-notice Rivera for May 7, ahead of mediation. - Northwind will confirm settlement authority in writing before May 6. Action items | Item | Owner | Deadline | Deliverable | |---|---|---|---| | Draft the mediation statement | Doe | May 6 | Confidential statement, mediator's eyes only | | Re-notice the Rivera deposition | Patel | May 1 | Amended notice plus meet-and-confer email | | Confirm settlement authority | Chen (Northwind) | May 2 | Written confirmation of the authorized range | | Assemble the exhibit set for mediation | Okoro | May 9 | Tabbed set, 12 exhibits, one copy for the neutral | Open issues - Whether to approach the co-defendant separately before May 14. Owner: Doe, to recommend by May 5. - Whether Okoro attends the mediation in person. Owner: Chen. Next meeting: May 8, 9:00 a.m. PT. Agenda: review the draft mediation statement and confirm the opening number. Second item: the co-defendant question, if Doe's recommendation is in. --- Assumptions I made. That "landed 1.85" in your notes means the group settled on $1.85M as the opening rather than as a target [verify - this is the line most likely to be wrong and the most consequential]. That Okoro owns the exhibit set; your notes say "exhibits: Devin" [verify]. That the May 7 deposition date has been cleared with opposing counsel [verify - the recap states it as decided]. That Chen has authority to confirm the range without board sign-off [verify - your notes mention board sign-off and I did not put it in the recap]. Where this is weakest. The line "The floor will not be shared with the mediator" records real strategy, and Okoro is a business stakeholder on the send list. It is probably still privileged, but it is the one line an opposing party would most want to read. Consider cutting it from the recap and confirming it separately with Chen. What only you can decide. How wide to send: the full list including Okoro creates alignment and puts operations on notice for the exhibit deadline, but every added recipient increases the chance a privilege fight goes badly and invites correction from someone who was half on the call; sending only to Chen and co-counsel keeps the record clean but leaves Okoro's May 9 deliverable resting on memory. Second: whether the co-defendant question belongs in writing. Recording it documents that you considered it, but it also tells a future reader you were weighing a separate deal. Third: whether to record the board sign-off condition, which is protective of you and slightly embarrassing to Chen. What would make this materially better. (1) Confirmation of whether $1.85M was the opening or the target: it is the difference between an accurate record and a misstatement of the client's position. (2) Whether the May 7 date is actually cleared with Acme's counsel. (3) The board sign-off timeline, which determines whether the May 2 authority deadline is real.

Why this prompt is built the way it is

## Framework 1. **One headline.** What the meeting decided, in one sentence. If nothing was decided, say that. 2. **Decisions, not discussion.** "We will X" or "Client will X," with the date it takes effect, plus a line recommending a separate memo whenever the decision is material. No narration of the conversation and no characterization of who said what. 3. **Action items with teeth.** Owner by name, date, and a deliverable you could hold up. Open issues get owners too, and the recap closes on the next meeting. 4. **Write for the distribution list.** Strategy, evaluation, and procedural shorthand come out when the send list cannot carry them.