Draft

Draft a declaration the witness will actually sign

Builds the declaration from what the witness knows first-hand, keeps the lawyer's voice out of it, marks every sentence that needs an exhibit, and names the cross-examination question each paragraph invites.

About 20 minintermediateLitigation, Solo / small firm

Your prompt6,380 characters

Still to fill in: The witness, What they can say, What this has to support, Court

RoleYou are a litigator who has had a declaration taken apart because the witness signed sentences they could not defend, written in a voice that was obviously not theirs. You build from foundation outward: how does this person know this, and can they say it without a document in front of them. You cut every characterization, because a declaration proves and a brief argues, and a declaration that argues gets read as a brief nobody can cross-examine.What I needDraft the declaration of The witness to support What this has to support in Court.InputsThe witness: The witness What they can say: What they can say What this has to support: What this has to support Court: Court Documents they can speak to: Documents the witness can speak toHow to work this1. Establish the foundation before drafting any content. For every fact in What they can say, say how this witness knows it: personal knowledge of something they did or saw, a document they created or received, a system they operate in the ordinary course, or something another person told them. The fourth category does not go into a declaration, and where What they can say contains it, say so rather than rewriting it into first-hand form. 2. Draft one fact per numbered paragraph, in the register The witness would actually use. A procurement lead does not say "thereafter I caused an RFQ to be transmitted." A declaration that reads as though a lawyer wrote it will be read as though a lawyer wrote it. 3. Mark two things as you go: every sentence that requires a document attached as an exhibit for the fact to stand, and every sentence that states a conclusion rather than an observation. "The price was reasonable" is a conclusion; "I received three bids and accepted the lowest" is an observation that supports one. 4. Cut the advocacy entirely. No characterization of the other side, no adverbs doing the work of facts, no legal standard, and no sentence whose function is to argue rather than to establish. What this has to support tells you what the declaration has to prove; the brief is where it gets argued. 5. Write a separate note to me, outside the declaration itself, saying what this declaration does not say and why: the fact in What they can say that this witness cannot actually support, the gap in What this has to support that another declaration or document will have to fill, and anything the witness would concede if asked directly. 6. For each numbered paragraph, name the question a cross-examiner asks about it, in one line. A paragraph with no obvious question is either uncontroversial or hiding something, and you should say which. 7. Do not state the execution requirements, the penalty-of-perjury language, the notarization rules, or the electronic signature practice for Court. Mark each [CONFIRM - execution requirements in this court] and leave the form to me.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Every fact whose foundation I inferred rather than read in What they can say, and every place I chose one of two possible meanings. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. Where I assumed the witness saw a document rather than being told about it, say so, because that assumption is the declaration. Where this is weakest. The two paragraphs the witness is most likely to be unable to defend under questioning. Quote the sentence and say what the witness would have to concede. What only you can decide. Options with tradeoffs, never a bare flag. At minimum: how much this declaration should say. A narrow declaration is unassailable and may not carry What this has to support on its own, while a fuller one does the work of the motion and gives a cross-examiner more surface. Also yours: whether to include the paragraphs that state conclusions. They are what the motion needs and they are the sentences a witness cannot defend, so they may belong in the brief with a record cite to the observations instead. What would make this materially better. Ranked: the documents the witness will authenticate, anything this witness has already said on the record, a conversation with the witness about the paragraphs I flagged, and the opposing declaration if one has been filed.Output formatThe declaration in filing form: an opening paragraph establishing who the witness is, their role, the period, and the basis of their knowledge, then numbered factual paragraphs. Every exhibit-dependent sentence carries an inline marker. Execution and signature block left as [CONFIRM - execution requirements in this court]. Then, below a horizontal rule and outside the declaration, three things: the conclusion-sentence list, the cross-examination question per paragraph, and the note on what this declaration does not say. Then the four sections.Never do this- If the declaration would work for a different witness in a different case, it is too generic. Every paragraph has to come from what this person did. - No hedging and no advocacy. "Clearly," "obviously," "in my view," and "I believe" have no place in a declaration, and "arguably" is worse. Do not tell me to consult an attorney; I am the attorney taking this declaration. - Never invent a fact, a date, a document, an exhibit number, or a quotation, and never state what the witness thought or intended unless What they can say says so. Anything not in my inputs is marked [UNVERIFIED - confirm with the witness before signing]. - Where you cannot tell whether the witness has first-hand knowledge, say you do not know and flag the paragraph. Do not write it in the first person to make it work. - Do not pad. A declaration that establishes four facts has four paragraphs. Length is not value.Before you answer- Does every paragraph have a stated foundation, and is any of it hearsay in first-person clothing? - Did I write any sentence this witness would not say out loud? - Is every exhibit-dependent sentence marked, and does every exhibit exist in my inputs? - Did any characterization or legal standard survive into the declaration? - Would a cross-examiner find a sentence here the witness cannot defend?

The run walks turn one, the pressure test, the follow-up, and a check on what came back. The Cockpit adds driver's-seat tunes. Your values come with either one.

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

Cross-examination is where a declaration goes to die. Take the chair as the lawyer deposing this witness with the signed declaration in hand: which paragraph would you start on, which sentence would you get the witness to walk back within three questions, and which one did the lawyer write rather than the witness? Then tell me what comes out of the declaration before it is signed, and what has to be proved another way.

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

A declaration without its exhibits proves nothing it claims. Build the exhibit package: every document the declaration depends on, the paragraph each supports, the sentence in the declaration that authenticates it, and a list of the documents the declaration needs that this witness cannot authenticate, with a note on who can.

4Check what came backPaste the answer here and work a checklist against this prompt's own rules.

Before you run it

What to gather first

Who the witness is and what their job actually was during the relevant period
The facts, in the witness's own words if you have them
What the declaration has to support, and for which motion
The documents the witness can authenticate or has actually seen
Anything the witness has already said on the record

Watch for

Execution requirements, perjury language, and electronic signature practice vary by court and by state, and a defective declaration can be struck entirely. Confirm the form before it is signed.
A declaration drafted from a lawyer's summary of what a witness said will contain sentences the witness never said. Read it with the witness, line by line, before signing.
Hearsay rewritten into the first person is the most common defect in a declaration and the easiest to expose. If the witness was told something, the declaration cannot say they saw it.
A declaration is a statement under penalty of perjury. Sentences that overstate what the witness knows create exposure for the witness, not only for the motion.
Do not paste privileged communications with the witness. The facts and the documents are enough to draft from.

What comes back

The declaration in filing form: an opening paragraph on identity, role, period, and basis of knowledge, then numbered factual paragraphs with inline markers on exhibit-dependent sentences and the execution block left as [CONFIRM]. Below the rule and outside the declaration: the conclusion-sentence list, a cross-examination question per paragraph, a note on what the declaration does not say, and the four closing sections.

See an example of what you’ll get

DECLARATION OF DANA OCHOA I, Dana Ochoa, declare as follows: 1. I have been the procurement lead at Acme Holdings since March 2022. I am responsible for sourcing components and negotiating supply terms. I make this declaration from my own knowledge, and if called as a witness I could testify to the facts stated here. 2. On April 15, 2025, I sent a request for quotation to four component suppliers for the parts Acme had been buying from BetaCorp. *[EXHIBIT: the RFQ as sent, with its distribution list.]* 3. I received three responses. I did not receive a response from the fourth supplier. *[EXHIBIT: the three bid responses.]* 4. The three quotes were $97, $104, and $112 per unit. I accepted the quote at $97 per unit. *[EXHIBIT: the purchase order.]* 5. I gave the suppliers fourteen days to respond because Acme had committed delivery dates to its own customers in May and I could not extend the sourcing window past April 29 without missing them. 6. I was on a call with BetaCorp's chief operating officer on April 11, 2025. He asked whether Acme would agree to a price increase. I told him I did not have authority to agree to one and that I would raise it internally. 7. I have not seen the supply agreement between Acme and BetaCorp and I have no knowledge of its terms. *[CONFIRM - execution requirements in this court, penalty-of-perjury language, and whether an electronic signature from an out-of-state witness is accepted.]* --- Sentences that state conclusions. None survive in the draft. The fact you need for {{purpose}}, that the cover was commercially reasonable, is a conclusion and I have not put it in her mouth. Paragraphs 2 through 5 establish the observations that support it: a competitive process, three responses, the lowest accepted, and a time constraint with a business reason. Argue reasonableness in the brief from those paragraphs. If you ask her to say "the price was commercially reasonable," you have given the other side a sentence to cross-examine and gained nothing the underlying facts do not already give you. Cross-examination question per paragraph | ¶ | The question | |---|---| | 2 | "How did you choose those four suppliers, and were there others you did not contact?" | | 3 | "Did you follow up with the fourth supplier?" | | 4 | "Did you negotiate with any of the three, or accept the lowest as submitted?" | | 5 | The dangerous one. "Who told you the customer delivery dates could not move?" If she was told this rather than knowing it, paragraph 5 is hearsay and it is the paragraph that explains why she did not shop longer | | 6 | "Did anyone else hear that call?" | | 7 | No question. It is a limitation she volunteered and it makes the rest more credible | What this declaration does not say. Three things. It does not say the $97 price was reasonable, for the reason above. It does not say why only four suppliers were approached, which is the gap a competitive-process argument has and which this witness may not be able to close; if there is a qualified-vendor list, that document closes it better than she can. And paragraph 5's premise, that the May delivery commitments were fixed, is stated as her reason rather than as a fact about the commitments, because you told me she ran sourcing and not the customer contracts. If you need the commitments proved, that is a second declaration from whoever owned them. --- Assumptions I made. That Ochoa personally sent the RFQ rather than directing someone to send it [verify: paragraph 2 says "I sent," and if an analyst sent it, the sentence and the foundation both change]. That she saw the three bid responses herself [safe: you listed them among her documents]. That the April 11 call is the one you mean and that she was a participant rather than a listener [verify]. Where this is weakest. Paragraph 5 is the paragraph a cross-examiner takes apart, because it carries the explanation for the sourcing window and its foundation is thinnest. If she knows about the May commitments because someone in sales told her, the sentence is hearsay dressed as a reason and it comes out. Second, paragraph 4 states three prices as facts; if her records show a revised quote from any supplier, the flat statement is falsified by your own exhibits. What only you can decide. How much this declaration should carry. As drafted it is narrow and unassailable and it does not, by itself, establish commercial reasonableness; it establishes the facts from which you argue it. A fuller version, adding her view of market conditions and why fourteen days was enough, does more of the motion's work and gives the other side a witness with opinions to cross-examine. Second call that is yours: whether paragraph 7 stays in. Volunteering that she has never seen the supply agreement is candid and makes everything above it more credible, and it also hands opposing counsel a clean line about what Acme's procurement lead did not know. What would make this materially better. Ranked by impact: (1) Twenty minutes with Ochoa on paragraph 5, which decides whether it stays. (2) The qualified-vendor list or sourcing policy, which would close the "why only four" gap without her having to. (3) Whoever owned the May customer commitments, for a second short declaration. (4) Whether she has already been deposed, since anything inconsistent with a transcript is worse than nothing.

Why this prompt is built the way it is

## Framework 1. **Foundation before content.** Personal knowledge, a document they saw, a system they operate, or hearsay. The fourth does not go in. 2. **One fact per numbered paragraph,** in the witness's own register. 3. **Mark every sentence needing an exhibit,** and every sentence that states a conclusion rather than an observation. 4. **Cut the advocacy.** No characterization, no legal standard, no "clearly." 5. **Say what the declaration does not say,** in a note to the lawyer rather than in the document. 6. **Name the cross-examination question each paragraph invites.** 7. **Never state the execution or perjury formalities.** Mark them to confirm.