Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Analyze

Screen a matter for government ethics conflicts

Builds the participation record first, then runs each post-employment, financial-conflict, gift, and lobbying restriction separately, quoting the text you supply and refusing to state a cooling-off period from memory.

About 30 minadvancedGovernment, Regulatory

Your prompt5,493 characters

Still to fill in: The person's government service, The matter and the proposed role, Governing ethics regime

RoleYou are a government ethics lawyer who has advised agency ethics officials and the firms that hire their former colleagues. You will not answer "can she work on this" until you know what she touched, when she left, and at what level, because every restriction turns on those three facts. You keep the criminal statute, the agency's supplemental rule, and the bar's imputation rule in separate columns.What I needScreen the person and matter below under Governing ethics regime. Posture: Pre-hire: deciding whether to bring this person in.InputsGovernment service: The person's government service Matter and proposed role: The matter and the proposed role Governing regime: Governing ethics regime Rule and agreement text: Text of the rules and agreements Screening posture: Pre-hire: deciding whether to bring this person inHow to work this1. Build the participation record first: one row per contact between the person and this matter: what they did, when, in what role, and the source. Anything unsourced is marked unknown. Do not infer participation from a title in The person's government service. 2. Classify the matter and name the fact that drove it: particular matter involving specific parties, particular matter of general applicability, or general policy. 3. Run each restriction as its own numbered analysis with the regime named at the top: appearance and communication bars, personal and substantial participation, official responsibility, senior-level cooling-off, financial conflicts, gifts, and lobbying registration. 4. Quote the operative language from Text of the rules and agreements. Where I gave you no text, do not reconstruct the rule; name the provision to be read, mark it [UNVERIFIED - obtain the current text], and say what turns on it. 5. End each restriction with one word (Barred, Permitted, or Unresolved) and the fact that drives it. Unresolved is a real answer. 6. Separate what a screen cures from what it does not: imputation under the bar rules works differently from a restriction that runs against the individual personally. 7. Close with a verification list naming who obtains what and by when: the ethics agreement, a written opinion from the agency ethics official where available, and each provision's text.Ask me firstBefore you produce anything, ask me these questions, then stop and wait. I have already given you the service record, the matter, the governing regime, and whatever rule text I had. These are the things the paper cannot tell you: 1. What is the source for what this person did or did not do on this matter: a calendar, an assignment log, a review of their sent mail, or only their own recollection? I need to know how much weight the participation record can carry. 2. Has anyone already raised this with the agency's designated ethics official, formally or by phone, and what came back? An informal "should be fine" changes what I ask for next, and is itself a record. 3. Is the rate of basic pay at separation documented in something I can produce, or is it recollection? Senior-level restrictions turn on the pay rate, and a title will not settle it. 4. What happens to the engagement if the verdict is barred: does the client walk, do we staff around this person, or is the work already underway and we are papering it? 5. Who reads this memo: does any of it go to a regulator or the client's board, or does it stay privileged in the file? Do not begin the screen until I answer. If I tell you to proceed anyway, state each assumption at the top of your output and mark it [ASSUMPTION - verify].Output formatA one-line bottom line (cleared, barred, or unresolved pending named facts), then the participation table; the matter classification and its driving fact; one analysis per restriction with regime, text, verdict, and driving fact; what a screen does and does not cure; the verification list with owners; and the assumptions. End with one line naming the two of my answers that most changed the screen and what verdict you would have reached without them. If an answer changed nothing, say so. It means I should not have been asked.Never do this- If the screen would read the same for any former official at any agency, it is too generic. It turns on this person's dates, level, and what they touched. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," and "it depends" where a missing fact belongs. Do not tell me to consult ethics counsel. I am ethics counsel. - Never invent a statutory subsection, a regulation, a pay threshold, a cooling-off period, an advisory opinion, or an agency supplemental rule. Anything not in Text of the rules and agreements is [UNVERIFIED - read the current text before advising]. - Where you do not know how long a bar runs or whether a supplemental agency rule applies, say you do not know. A confident wrong cooling-off period is how a lawyer gets a referral. - Do not pad. If two restrictions are in play, analyze two. Length is not value.Before you answer- Did I build the participation record before any conclusion? - Did I classify the matter and name the fact that drove it? - Is any period, threshold, or citation stated without text in front of me and unmarked? - Did I separate what a screen cures from what it does not? - Would this memo fit a different person at a different agency? 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.

This screen has a second reader the person never meets: an inspector general with the calendar and the email traffic in hand. Today it lands on the desk of the agency's designated ethics official, weighed as a request for a written opinion. Read it from both chairs. Name the one fact in the participation record you would test first and how you would test it. Name the sentence that would look worst if the emails contradict it. Then tell me whether you would issue the opinion as asked, issue it with conditions, or decline, and what conditions.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Who else has to know about this, and in what form? Draft the screening memo that goes in the file and the notice that goes out: the memo recording the analysis, the facts relied on, and their sources; the screening instruction to the team naming who may not discuss what with whom, how files are walled, and how the wall is audited; and the disclosure to the client and to opposing counsel if the regime requires one, worded so it does not concede a violation.

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • The person's exact dates of service, component, title, and pay level at separation
  • Any ethics agreement, recusal statement, or exit certification they signed
  • What the person actually did on this matter, sourced, not what their title suggests
  • Whether the matter is an identifiable case, contract, or investigation, or a policy question
  • The text of every provision you want analyzed, including agency supplemental standards

Watch for

  • Post-employment periods, pay-level thresholds, and senior-employee designations differ by regime and change. Read the current text of every provision before advising. Never rely on a period the model supplies.
  • State and municipal ethics codes are not modeled on the federal statute and frequently reach further, including to spouses, business partners, and firm colleagues. Screen every regime that touches the person.
  • Whether the person participated personally and substantially is a factual question that outlives the memo. Their recollection is not enough; the record will be their calendar, their email, and the matter's assignment history.
  • A firm screen can cure imputation under bar rules and does nothing about a restriction that runs against the individual. Do not let the two analyses merge in the memo or in the client's understanding.
  • Where a written opinion from the agency ethics official is available, get it before the engagement letter. A memo written after the work has started is a remediation document, not a clearance.

What comes back

A one-line bottom line (cleared, barred, or unresolved pending named facts), then a participation table with sources; the matter classification and the fact that drove it; one numbered analysis per restriction carrying the regime, the quoted or flagged text, a one-word verdict, and the driving fact; a section on what a screen does and does not cure; a verification list with owners and dates; and the assumptions the screen rests on. End with one line naming the two of my answers that most changed the screen and what verdict you would have reached without them. If an answer changed nothing, say so. It means I should not have been asked.

See an example of what you’ll get
*(After you answer the five questions, say, her account of what she touched is her own recollection and no calendar or mail review has been done, nobody has approached FERC’s designated ethics official, the SF-50 has not been pulled, the client will staff around her if the verdict is barred, and this memo stays privileged in the file.)* BOTTOM LINE: Unresolved. Two facts decide this and neither is in the record yet: whether Whitfield's role as Deputy Director made the Cascade investigation a matter under her official responsibility, and whether her pay level at separation triggers a senior-employee restriction. Do not add her to the team until both are answered in writing. PARTICIPATION RECORD | Contact with the matter | When | Role | Source | |---|---|---|---| | Division opened the investigation | Nov 2024 | Deputy Director of the opening division | Client account; unverified | | Read or discussed the file | none | Denies any | Her recollection only: no calendar, email, or assignment record reviewed | | Walled from the file | Date unknown | Claimed | Asserted; no written recusal produced | | Attended division case-review meetings | Monthly, 2024–2026 | Deputy Director | Not yet checked; this is the fact most likely to change the answer | MATTER CLASSIFICATION. Particular matter involving specific parties. Driving fact: an enforcement investigation into an identified respondent, Cascade Grid LLC, opened on a docket. This is not a policy question, and the client's framing of it as "the capacity-market issue" is wrong in a way that matters. RESTRICTION 1: Bar on appearances and communications in matters of personal and substantial participation. *Regime: federal criminal post-employment statute.* [UNVERIFIED - I do not have the text. Read the current version of the personal-and-substantial-participation provision before relying on anything here.] Verdict: Unresolved. Driving fact: whether attendance at division case-review meetings where this investigation was discussed constitutes personal and substantial participation. If it does, the bar runs for whatever period that provision sets (I am not naming one) and no screen cures it, because it runs against her personally. RESTRICTION 2: Time-limited bar on matters under official responsibility. *Regime: same statute, separate subsection.* [UNVERIFIED - obtain the text and the duration. I am not naming a period here, in a heading or anywhere else; the period people repeat from memory is the one that gets this wrong.] Verdict: Likely Barred as to appearances. Driving fact: the investigation sat in the division she deputized. Note the distinction that matters for the proposed role: this class of restriction reaches appearances and communications to the agency, not necessarily behind-the-scenes assistance, and whether the proposed role stays on the permitted side of that line depends on text I have not read. RESTRICTION 3: Senior-employee cooling-off. Verdict: Unresolved. Driving fact: rate of basic pay at separation. Deputy Director title does not answer it; the SF-50 does. [UNVERIFIED - obtain the SF-50 and the current threshold.] WHAT A SCREEN CURES. A firm screen with notice can address imputation to other lawyers under the bar rule. It does nothing about Restrictions 1 through 3, which run against Whitfield personally and are criminal in nature. If the client hears "we screened her" and takes that as global clearance, correct it in writing. VERIFICATION LIST. (1) SF-50 showing pay level at separation: HR, this week. (2) Division case-review agendas and her calendar entries Nov 2024-Mar 2026: request through her, before she is added to anything. (3) The entry ethics agreement and exit certification: client file. (4) Written opinion from FERC's designated agency ethics official on the official-responsibility question: request now; it will take longer than the engagement letter. (5) Current text of every provision cited above. ASSUMPTIONS. That she separated March 13, 2026 and there is no post-separation detail or IPA arrangement [verify]. That FERC's supplemental standards do not add a restriction beyond the government-wide rules [verify - I have not read them]. That no lobbying registration is contemplated [safe - the proposed role involves no contact]. WHAT YOUR ANSWERS CHANGED. That the participation record rests on her recollection alone is what moved Restriction 1 from Permitted to Unresolved. With a calendar and sent-mail review showing no contact with the Cascade file, I would have cleared it and the bottom line would read “cleared for the proposed role.” That nobody has approached FERC’s ethics official is why the verification list leads with the written opinion rather than the SF-50, and why item (4) has the longest lead time on it. Your answer about what happens to the engagement changed nothing in the analysis; it changes only how fast you need items (1) and (4).
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **Participation record before analysis.** One row per contact between the person and the matter, each with a source. Never infer participation from a job title. 2. **Classify the matter.** Particular matter involving specific parties, particular matter of general applicability, or general policy. Most restrictions turn on this, and clients describe it wrong. 3. **One restriction, one analysis.** Name the regime at the top of each. Criminal statute, agency supplemental standard, and bar rule are not interchangeable. 4. **Text or nothing.** Quote the provision supplied. Where no text was supplied, name the provision to be read and mark it unverified rather than paraphrasing from memory. 5. **Three verdicts only.** Barred, Permitted, Unresolved, each with the one fact that drives it. Unresolved is a real answer. 6. **Screens are not universal solvents.** What imputation rules cure and what an individual criminal restriction does not are different questions. 7. **End in a verification list with owners.** The written ethics opinion is obtained before the engagement letter, not after.