Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Translate

Explain charges and exposure to a client

Turns a charging document into something a frightened client can read twice: what the government must prove element by element, what the exposure actually is, what happens next, and every number left blank until you verify it.

About 12 minstarterCriminal defense, Solo / small firm

Your prompt4,995 characters

Still to fill in: Court and system, Charges as filed, The client, and what they are most afraid of

RoleYou are a criminal defense lawyer who has told several thousand people what they are charged with, most of them in the worst week of their life. You use short sentences and ordinary words, you keep the number on the statute separate from the number actually in play, and you refuse both halves of the lie: you will not promise an outcome, and you will not let a client leave believing the maximum is the forecast.What I needExplain the charges below to my client under Court and system, written so they can read it twice and understand it both times.InputsCharges as filed: Charges as filed The client, and their biggest fear: The client, and what they are most afraid of Penalty range I have verified: Penalty range you have verified Case stands: Just arrested (before first appearance) · Court and system: Court and systemHow to work this1. Give each count one sentence in ordinary words (what the government says the client did) with the statute cite in a parenthetical at the end. Then list what they must prove as items joined by "and," and say that failing any one ends the count. 2. Build exposure in two labeled parts: what the law allows, and what is realistically in play. Where the realistic range is not knowable yet, say so and say what has to happen first. Collect every [LOOK UP] and [CONFIRM ELEMENT] blank in a checklist at the end. 3. Pull from The client, and what they are most afraid of the consequences that will matter most here (immigration, a license, housing, children, firearms) and flag each for the right specialist without answering it. Then say what happens next given Just arrested (before first appearance): the date, what happens at that hearing, and what the client should do this week. Define any legal term in the sentence it appears in.Close with these four sections, every time, without being asked*(These four are for me, not the client. Put them below the divider.)* Assumptions I made. Marked [verify] or [safe]: which sentencing scheme you assumed, whether an enhancement applies, whether the counts as pasted are current. Where this is weakest. The two sentences most likely to be heard as a promise, and any place an element is simplified in a way that would matter at trial. What only you can decide. Options with tradeoffs, never a bare flag. At minimum: give the client the full statutory ceiling now: honest, and it prevents the "you never told me" conversation, but a client in custody may hear only that number for weeks, or lead with the realistic range and hold the ceiling for the in-person meeting, which keeps them functional but means they hear it second. And whether immigration exposure goes in writing before specialist advice. What would make this materially better. Ranked by impact: the verified penalty range with enhancements, the criminal history, exact immigration status and date of admission, the next setting.Output formatA client-facing letter with these headings in order: What you are charged with · What they have to prove · What the law allows · What is realistically in play · Other things this could affect · What happens next, with the date · What I still don't know. Then a divider, the checklist, and the four sections.Never do this- If this letter would fit any defendant charged with anything anywhere, it is too generic. Rebuild from these counts and this client's life. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," "it depends." Do not tell the reader to consult an attorney. I am the attorney. - Never state a maximum, minimum, guideline range, fine, parole rule, or element of an offense from memory. Every figure comes from Penalty range you have verified or is written [LOOK UP - Court and system]; every element comes from the charging language in Charges as filed or is written [CONFIRM ELEMENT - Court and system]. Never invent a statute number or a case. - Where you do not know how Court and system treats an enhancement or whether a charge carries immigration consequences, say you do not know and name who should answer it. Do not smooth over the gap with confident prose. - Do not pad. If a count takes three sentences to explain, write three. Length is not value. - Never predict an outcome, never say "this will be fine," and never lead with the maximum for effect. No false comfort, no catastrophizing. Do not advise the client on what to say to anyone; if in custody, remind them that calls and mail are recorded.Before you answer- Is there a number or an element here that did not come from my inputs and is not marked [LOOK UP] or [CONFIRM ELEMENT]? - Could a frightened person read this once and say what the government has to prove? - Did I keep the ceiling and the realistic range visibly separate, and did anything read as a promise or a reason to panic?

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

2

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

The grievance reads: "my lawyer told me I was looking at probation and I got eight years." You are bar counsel, and this letter is the only writing in the file. Which sentences would you read aloud at the hearing as the ones that created that expectation? Which figure is stated with more confidence than the file supports? Rewrite each so it says the same true thing without becoming a promise, and name the one sentence the letter should have contained and does not.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

He will read the letter once and then sit across from me with questions. Build what comes after: an agenda for the next meeting with the client, in the order it should be discussed; the eight to ten questions I need him to answer before I can assess the case, written the way I would actually ask them; the specialists to bring in and what each needs from me: immigration counsel with the exact plea language they will need, the licensing board question, anyone the family should call about housing or benefits; and a short script for what he tells his employer this week.

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • The complaint, information, or indictment with the statute cites
  • The penalty range you have actually pulled from the current code, including enhancements
  • Prior convictions and anything that triggers a mandatory minimum or repeat-offender treatment
  • The client's immigration status, occupational license, housing, and children
  • The next court date and what is scheduled to happen at it

Watch for

  • Penalty ranges, enhancements, parole and good-time rules, diversion eligibility, and the elements of each offense are statutory, differ by jurisdiction, and are amended regularly. Pull every figure and every element from the current code yourself; never let an unverified number or element reach a client.
  • Immigration consequences require separate specialist analysis. A charge that looks minor can be a deportable offense or an aggravated felony, and general advice here can create its own problem.
  • Anything you write to a client in custody is subject to facility screening, and calls and visits are recorded. Assume the letter will be read by someone other than the client.
  • Written estimates become the client's expectation and are the most common source of later grievances. Keep the statutory ceiling and the realistic range clearly separated and label both.
  • The model tends to lead with the maximum because it is the most concrete number available. Check that the letter does not leave a frightened client believing the ceiling is the forecast.

What comes back

A client-facing letter or handout: a short opening, What you are charged with (one sentence per count), What they have to prove (an itemized list per count), What the law allows and What is realistically in play as separate labeled parts, Other things this could affect, What happens next with the date, and What I still don't know. Below a divider: a checklist of every [LOOK UP] and [CONFIRM ELEMENT] item to verify, and the four collaboration sections, addressed to the lawyer.

See an example of what you’ll get
Mr. Alcántara: This letter explains what you are charged with and what happens next. Read it twice. Write your questions in the margin and bring it Thursday. Do not discuss any of this on the jail phone. Those calls are recorded. What you are charged with. Count 1: The State says you used a deadly weapon and threatened or caused injury to another person (aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, Tex. Penal Code § 22.02(a)(2)). Count 2: The State says you had a firearm and that you had a prior felony conviction that made it illegal for you to have one (§ 46.04(a)). There is also an enhancement paragraph. That means the State is using your 2017 conviction to ask for a higher punishment range on Count 1. What they have to prove: Count 1. These are the items the indictment itself alleges: that you acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, and that you caused bodily injury or threatened someone with imminent bodily injury, and that you used or exhibited a deadly weapon while doing it. I am reading those off the charging paragraph, not from memory, and I will check each against the current text of the statute before we meet [CONFIRM ELEMENT - Tex. Penal Code § 22.02(a)(2)]. If the State fails on any one of them, Count 1 fails. All twelve jurors have to agree. What they have to prove: Count 2. That you possessed a firearm, and that you had a prior felony conviction. There is a third item (a time window measured from a date in your earlier case) and I am not going to state it here, because I would be stating it from memory and that window is the part of this count most likely to be wrong [CONFIRM ELEMENT - Tex. Penal Code § 46.04(a); I will have the exact wording and how the window is measured before Thursday]. Same rule: any one fails, the count fails. What the law allows. A second-degree felony carries 2 to 20 years and a fine of up to $10,000. With the 2017 enhancement, the State will argue the range moves to 5 to 99 years or life. I verified both of those against the current Penal Code on April 8. A deadly weapon finding also changes when you become eligible for parole. [LOOK UP: current Tex. Gov't Code parole eligibility with an affirmative deadly weapon finding]. What is realistically in play. I do not know yet, and I am not going to guess. What it depends on: whether the enhancement holds up, what the complaining witness says now versus what she said on March 30, and whether the firearm can be connected to you. I expect to be able to give you a real range after I have the full discovery file, which I have asked for and expect within three weeks. Other things this could affect. You are a lawful permanent resident. A conviction on either count could affect your status, and I am not the person who should answer that question. I am bringing in immigration counsel and I will not agree to any plea language before they have reviewed it. Your HVAC license is a separate question with its own board process; I will find out what triggers a report. Your employer question I can help with on Thursday. What happens next. Your next setting is May 6 at 9:00 a.m. in the 232nd. It is a status setting: nothing will be decided about guilt or punishment. I will be there. You do not need to prepare anything for it. What I still don't know. Whether the State will offer anything. What the complaining witness will say. Whether the 2017 conviction is final and usable for enhancement. I have ordered the judgment. --- [LOOK UP before this goes out]: parole eligibility with a deadly weapon finding; whether § 46.04 has its own range in this posture; whether the 2017 judgment satisfies § 12.42. [CONFIRM ELEMENT before this goes out]: the Count 1 element list against the current text of § 22.02(a)(2), and the § 46.04(a) time window and how it is measured. Neither goes to the client until it is checked against the code. Assumptions I made. That Texas state sentencing governs and no federal exposure exists [verify]. That the enhancement paragraph refers to a final conviction [verify - I ordered the judgment]. That the counts as pasted are the operative charging instrument [safe]. That the Count 1 element list tracks the charging paragraph rather than my recollection of the statute [verify - marked in the letter]. Where this is weakest. "I expect to be able to give you a real range after I have the full discovery file" will be heard as a promise about timing you may not control. And the Count 1 element list flattens the difference between causing injury and threatening injury. Fine for a letter, but do not let him think the State has to prove an actual injury. What only you can decide. Whether the 5-to-99 number goes in the letter at all. It is honest, it prevents the "you never told me" conversation, and it is what the State will say out loud on May 6, but he is in custody, he will read this alone, and that number is what he will carry for three weeks. The alternative is to state the 2-to-20 range now and deliver the enhancement in person Thursday, which keeps him functional but means he hears the worse number second and from you. Also yours: whether any immigration exposure goes in writing before specialist counsel has reviewed the charges. What would make this materially better. (1) The 2017 judgment: it decides whether the enhancement number is real. (2) His exact date and category of admission for the immigration referral. (3) The complaining witness's March 30 statement. (4) Confirmation of the May 6 setting time.
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **One sentence per count, then the elements.** Ordinary words, statute number in a parenthetical; the elements as a list joined by "and," so the client sees that failing one ends the count. 2. **Never supply a number or an element from memory.** Maximums, minimums, guideline ranges, fines, eligibility rules, and the elements themselves come from the lawyer's verified input or stay a labeled blank. 3. **Separate the ceiling from the forecast.** Say what the statute allows, then what is actually in play, and say plainly when that is not knowable yet. 4. **Collateral consequences and what happens next.** Immigration, a license, housing, or custody can matter more than the sentence (flag each for referral, never resolve it here), then the next court date and what the client does before it. 5. **No comfort and no catastrophe.** No predictions dressed as reassurance, and say what is unknown and when it will be known.