Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Draft/Featured

Draft a brief introduction the judge remembers

Writes the opening paragraphs that put your version of the case in the judge's head before the standard of review: fact-first, no throat-clearing, ending on the order you want signed.

About 10 minintermediateLitigation

Your prompt5,086 characters

Still to fill in: Who you represent, Theme and key facts, Rule and relief, Court and standard of review

RoleYou are a senior appellate advocate who writes the introduction last, after the argument is proven, because you cannot frame a case you have not yet won on paper. You write in facts and verbs, you cut every sentence a law clerk would skim, and you refuse to open with the standard of review or a recitation of the procedural history.What I needDraft the introduction (two or three paragraphs) for my Motion to dismiss on behalf of Who you represent, filed in Court and standard of review.InputsTheme and key facts: Theme and key facts Brief type: Motion to dismiss Who I represent: Who you represent Court and standard of review: Court and standard of review Rule and relief: Rule and relief Their frame: How the other side frames itHow to work this1. Build the first sentence around a fact that carries a date, a number, or an act. If your draft sentence contains "This is a case about," "This case presents," or the name of a doctrine, delete it and start over. 2. In paragraph one, tell the wrong in three to five sentences: chronological, active voice, party names rather than "Appellant" and "Appellee." No adverb may do the work of a fact. 3. In paragraph two, state the rule from Rule and relief in one sentence a non-lawyer could repeat, then give two sentences of roadmap connecting that rule to the facts in paragraph one. 4. Answer How the other side frames it in a single sentence that does not restate it in their words. If I gave you no frame, write the strongest one they have and answer that. 5. Match the posture of Motion to dismiss: pleading stage, label every fact as an allegation; summary judgment or appeal, attach a record cite to each fact or mark it [RECORD CITE NEEDED]. 6. Mention the standard of review only if it helps me under Court and standard of review: one clause, inside a sentence that is doing other work. If it hurts, leave it for the argument section. 7. Close on the relief from Rule and relief, phrased as the order I want the court to sign. 8. Delete on sight: "clearly," "plainly," "obviously," "as demonstrated below," "it is respectfully submitted," "for the foregoing reasons."Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Every factual, legal, and strategic assumption in the draft. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. Say specifically which sentences state record facts, which state allegations, and which are characterization that opposing counsel will call argument. Where this is weakest. The two or three sentences most likely to draw a skeptical margin note: the overstated fact, the rule stated more broadly than the authority supports, the sentence that assumes the conclusion. Quote each one. What only you can decide. The judgment calls I deliberately did not make. Present each as options with tradeoffs. At minimum: open on the equities, which moves a judge but can read as a signal that the law is against me, or open on the rule, which is cleaner before a textualist panel and colder to everyone else. Also whether to name the individual executive who did this, which is vivid and makes an enemy, or keep it at the corporate level. And whether to concede my worst fact here, defusing it early at the cost of momentum, or leave it for the statement of facts. What would make this materially better. The specific record cite, transcript page, or exhibit that would let a characterization become a fact. Rank by impact.Output formatTwo or three paragraphs, four to seven sentences each, ready to paste under the heading INTRODUCTION. First sentence carries a fact. Last sentence states the relief. Then the four sections above.Never do this- If this introduction would work with another case name dropped in, it is too generic. Rebuild it from my facts and my dates. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it could be argued," and "it depends." Do not tell me to consult an attorney. I am the one signing the brief. - Never invent a fact, a quotation, a record cite, or a holding. Anything not in my inputs is marked [RECORD CITE NEEDED] or [UNVERIFIED - check before filing]. A fabricated cite in a brief is a Rule 11 problem. - Where you do not know whether a fact is in the record or how Court and standard of review states the standard, say you do not know. Do not smooth the gap over with fluent prose. - Never restate the other side's theme in their own words, even to rebut it. Repeating a frame installs it. - Do not pad. If two paragraphs carry the case, write two. Length is not value.Before you answer- Does sentence one open on a fact, or does it announce a category of case? - Could a non-lawyer repeat my rule sentence after reading it once? - Is every fact either record-cited, labeled as an allegation, or flagged? - Does the last sentence state the relief in the words of an order? - Would this opening work in someone else's case? It should not.

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.

A law clerk who has read nothing but this introduction has to tell the judge, in one sentence, what this case is about. Write that sentence exactly as the clerk would write it. If it is not the sentence I want the judge carrying into argument, name the paragraph that failed and rewrite it. Then mark the exact word where the clerk starts skimming, and tell me what the other side's introduction will say that mine leaves unanswered.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

At the podium you get one sentence before the bench takes over. Write the oral-argument version: the one sentence you say when the judge interrupts with "Counsel, what is this case really about?", plus the two follow-up sentences that survive a hostile question about my worst fact. Keep all three in spoken English: no citations, no subordinate clauses a listener would lose.

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • The type of brief and the procedural posture it sits in
  • Your one-sentence theme and the two to four facts that prove it
  • The governing rule and the exact relief you want
  • The court, and the standard of review that applies there
  • How the other side frames the case in their own filings

Watch for

  • Most courts cap the length of a brief and some cap the introduction specifically. Check the local rule and the standing order before you fall in love with three paragraphs.
  • A vivid characterization that outruns the record invites a reply brief that spends its first page on your credibility instead of your argument. Record-cite every fact.
  • At the pleading stage the facts are allegations. An introduction that states them as established gives the other side a free point.
  • The model reaches for "This case raises important questions" and similar filler. Cut it every time it reappears.
  • Verify any citation the model supplies, including the standard of review. It varies by claim, by issue, and by circuit.

What comes back

Two or three paragraphs, four to seven sentences each, ready to paste under an INTRODUCTION heading. Active voice, party names, a fact-carrying first sentence, the rule in one repeatable sentence, a two-sentence roadmap, and a final sentence that states the relief. Closes with Assumptions / Where this is weakest / What only you can decide / What would make this better.

See an example of what you’ll get
*(Ninth Circuit answering brief for Acme, de novo review.)* Acme Holdings signed BetaCorp's supply agreement on February 12, 2025, and paid all six invoices that followed within thirty days. (ER 44, 61-72.) Then, on April 1, 2025 (after Acme had locked in its supply chain, hired the warehouse staff, and turned away two other distributors), BetaCorp sent a letter announcing it would ship nothing further unless Acme agreed to pay 38 percent more per unit than the contract required. (ER 88.) Acme refused, covered at market, and sued. Thirteen days later BetaCorp's own chief operating officer put the answer to this appeal in writing: BetaCorp "cannot perform." (ER 91.) The rule that decides this case fits in one sentence: a signed contract cannot be rewritten by one side alone. Cal. Com. Code § 2209 [UNVERIFIED - confirm section and current text]. BetaCorp's April 1 letter was not an offer to modify; it was notice of a breach it had already decided to commit. The district court held exactly that, granted summary judgment, and entered an $842,000 cover-damages judgment supported by three replacement-vendor invoices BetaCorp never disputed. (ER 103-118.) BetaCorp now recasts the case as a distributor's buyer's remorse, but the price Acme paid is the price BetaCorp's repudiation created. This Court should affirm. --- Assumptions I made. ER cites are drawn from your facts and are reproduced as given [verify each against the excerpts]. "Turned away two other distributors" is characterization, not a record fact you gave me [verify - if it is not in the record, cut it, because it is the most attackable sentence here]. De novo review [safe - summary judgment]. Where this is weakest. "BetaCorp had already decided to commit" states intent you have not proven. A panel will read it as argument and discount the paragraph around it. Consider "BetaCorp's April 1 letter was not an offer to modify; thirteen days later it confirmed it would not perform at any price." What only you can decide. Open on the equities, as drafted (three years of on-time payment, then a squeeze), which reads well to a generalist panel but signals that the law is not doing the work. Or open on § 2209 and reach the facts in sentence three, which is colder but stronger if you draw a panel that dislikes narrative. Also yours: whether to name BetaCorp's COO in the introduction, which makes the admission personal and vivid, or keep it institutional and avoid a sympathy problem at argument. What would make this materially better. (1) A record cite for "turned away two other distributors." It is the most vivid clause in the introduction and the only one with nothing under it; a declaration page or a deposition line turns characterization into fact, and without one I would cut it. (2) The district court's order at ER 103-118, so paragraph two can quote the court's own holding instead of my summary of it. A panel weighs a quoted holding differently than counsel's paraphrase. (3) Confirmation of the California Commercial Code section and its current text. It is the only citation in the draft and it is unverified. (4) BetaCorp's opening brief. If it does not actually argue buyer's remorse, the last sentence of paragraph two is answering a frame nobody raised, and it should be replaced with the frame they did.
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **The first sentence carries a fact, not a category.** A date, a number, an act. "This is a case about" and "This case presents" are dead on arrival. 2. **Tell before you argue.** The reader should feel the wrong before hearing the rule. Chronology, active voice, party names rather than procedural designations. 3. **The rule in one repeatable sentence.** If a non-lawyer could not repeat it after one read, rewrite it. 4. **Roadmap, not table of contents.** Two sentences on why the rule plus these facts produce this relief. 5. **Answer the other side's frame without repeating it.** A frame restated in the opponent's words is a frame adopted. 6. **Match the posture.** At the pleading stage facts are allegations and must be labeled as such. At summary judgment every fact needs a record cite. On appeal, name what the court below did and the error in it. 7. **End on the ask.** The last sentence states the relief in the language of the order you want entered. 8. **No throat-clearing.** "As demonstrated below," "it is respectfully submitted," "clearly," "plainly," and "for the foregoing reasons" all go.