Pressure-Test

Pressure-test your complaint before you file it

Reads your draft complaint as the defense lawyer drafting the motion to dismiss: ranks the counts by vulnerability, quotes the conclusory allegations they will attack, and tells you which paragraphs to fix and which counts to cut.

About 20 minadvancedLitigation

Your prompt5,406 characters

Still to fill in: Draft complaint, Forum and governing law

RoleYou are senior defense counsel with a motion to dismiss due in three weeks and a client who pays for the win. You read a complaint the way you read a deposition transcript (hunting for the sentence that concedes something) and you keep a hard line between what the plaintiff pleaded and what the plaintiff merely announced. You do not argue the merits at this stage, and you never let a label count as a fact.What I needAttack the draft complaint below before I file it in Forum and governing law. Find what Defendants and their counsel's lawyers will find, and tell me what to fix, cut, or keep knowingly.InputsDraft complaint: Draft complaint Forum: Forum and governing law What I can prove today: What you can actually prove now Deadlines and history: Deadlines and history Defendants and counsel: Defendants and their counselHow to work this1. For each count, list the elements the plaintiff must plead under the law of Forum and governing law. If you are not certain of them there, say so rather than guessing. 2. Map each element to the paragraph that pleads it. An element with no paragraph behind it is the headline vulnerability. 3. Separate fact from label, paragraph by paragraph. Quote the conclusory allegations verbatim with their numbers. An allegation that recites the element's own language is the target. 4. Run the trap checklist: Rule 9(b) particularity for anything sounding in fraud, group pleading, "on information and belief" carrying a load-bearing fact, shotgun incorporation, and any allegation that concedes an affirmative defense on the face of the pleading. 5. Test standing, jurisdiction, and preemption count by count. Do not stop at the first count that clears. 6. Rank the counts most to least vulnerable, and for the top ones give the argument the defense will actually make. Mark any authority not drawn from my inputs [UNVERIFIED]. 7. Give every vulnerability one disposition: fix with paragraph-level language drawn only from What you can actually prove now, cut with what is lost, or keep and accept with the reason it is worth the motion. 8. Name what this complaint gives away: admissions, dates that start a clock, theories that invite a counterclaim or fee shifting.Ask me firstBefore you produce anything, ask me these questions, then stop and wait. You have already given me the complaint, what you can prove today, and your deadlines and history above. These are the three things the paper cannot tell me: 1. Are you trying to survive the motion at any cost, or to preserve a thin theory because it opens discovery you need? I will grade the same count differently depending on the answer. 2. Which allegations would you rather not pin down yet, because discovery may move them? I will not propose replacement language that commits you to a fact you may want back. 3. If the court dismissed two counts with leave to replead, is that an acceptable outcome for this client, or does the client need this complaint to survive intact on the first motion? Do not begin 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 formatVulnerability ranking, most exposed count to least. Then a block per count: elements, where each is pleaded, the conclusory allegation quoted with its paragraph number, the defense's likely argument, and the disposition (fix with draft language / cut with what is lost / keep and accept with a reason). Then Cross-cutting traps, What this gives away, and Counts I would cut. End with one line naming which of my answers most changed the vulnerability ranking and the dispositions, and what you would have told me to fix, cut, or keep without them. If an answer changed nothing, say so. It means I should not have been asked.Never do this- If your critique would fit any complaint in any court ("add more factual detail") it is too generic. Point at a count, a paragraph number, or a missing element. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," "this may be vulnerable," and "it depends." Do not tell me to consult an attorney. I am litigation counsel. - Every case, statute, or rule you cite must come from my inputs or carry [UNVERIFIED - check before filing]. Never invent a citation, pin cite, or quotation. A fabricated cite in a pleading is a Rule 11 problem. - Where you do not know the elements or the pleading standard in Forum and governing law (including whether it follows Twombly and Iqbal or a state analogue), say you do not know. Do not smooth over the gap with fluent prose. - Do not attack the merits. A count weak on the evidence but adequately pleaded survives a motion to dismiss, and saying otherwise wastes my three weeks. - Do not pad. If two counts are exposed, name two; length is not value.Before you answer- Did I quote actual allegations with paragraph numbers, or paraphrase and call it a quotation? - Did I check standing and jurisdiction for every count, not just the first? - Does every proposed fix use only facts the lawyer told me they can prove? - Did I name counts to cut, not only counts to patch, and would this analysis be useless applied to a different complaint? It should be.

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.

Before any of these vulnerabilities becomes a dismissal, a district judge has to agree it is one. She is stingy about dismissing a case at the pleading stage and grants leave to amend nearly every time. Take the bench as the district judge who decides this one. Go through each vulnerability the analysis identified and say whether you would actually dismiss on it, dismiss with leave to replead, or deny outright. Then tell the plaintiff which "fixes" were solving a problem that was never going to cost them the count, so the complaint is not weakened chasing a motion that would have failed.

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

A list of fixes is not a complaint; the paragraphs are. Draft the actual replacements. For every fix you recommended, write the amended allegation in numbered-paragraph form ready to drop into the complaint, using only facts I said I can prove today, and flag each place where the new language commits us to a fact we would rather keep flexible through discovery.

Before you run it

What to gather first

The full draft complaint, with paragraph numbers intact
Which facts you can prove today with a document, a witness, or a declaration
Any limitations, tolling, or administrative exhaustion deadline forcing the filing date
Whether this plaintiff has filed or amended before on these facts, including at an agency
Who the defendants are and who is likely to represent them

Watch for

Pleading standards are not uniform. Twombly and Iqbal apply in federal court, many state courts have not adopted them, and statutory claims sometimes survive on thinner allegations. Confirm the standard in your forum before cutting a count.
Verify every citation before filing. A fabricated case or pin cite in a pleading is a Rule 11 problem, and courts have sanctioned lawyers for exactly this.
The model will confuse evidentiary weakness with pleading defect. A count that is hard to prove can still be perfectly pleaded. Do not amend it away.
Fixes are only as good as the facts you supply. If you do not tell it what you can prove, it will invent plausible-sounding allegations you cannot support.
This analysis is work product about your own client's filing. Keep it out of anything discoverable and out of tools your client has not approved.

What comes back

A vulnerability ranking of the counts, then per count: the elements, where each is pleaded, the conclusory allegation quoted with its paragraph number, the defense's likely argument and authority, and a disposition: fix with draft paragraph language, cut with what is lost, or keep and accept with a reason. Then cross-cutting traps, what the complaint concedes, and the counts to cut.

See an example of what you’ll get

*(The form already told me you hold the March 3 email and the VP's text, that you have no comparator pay data, and that the right-to-sue expires June 14 with no prior filings. After you answer the three questions: you want the retaliation count bulletproof while keeping the contract count alive for discovery, you would rather not pin the first adverse act to a date yet, and a partial dismissal with leave to replead is not acceptable to this client.)* Vulnerability ranking. Count IV (IIED) > Count II (Fraud) > Count III (Breach of contract) > Count I (Title VII retaliation). Count IV: Intentional infliction of emotional distress. - *Elements (N.Y.):* extreme and outrageous conduct; intent or recklessness; causation; severe emotional distress. - *Where pleaded:* Element one appears only at ¶ 73. Elements two and four have no supporting paragraph at all. - *Conclusory allegation (¶ 73):* "Defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous and exceeded all bounds of decency tolerated by society." That is the element recited back, and it gets no presumption of truth under *Iqbal*, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) [UNVERIFIED - confirm pin cite]. - *Defense argument:* New York confines IIED to conduct "so outrageous in character... as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency," and termination on a four-day timeline does not approach it. *Murphy v. Am. Home Prods. Corp.*, 58 N.Y.2d 293 (1983) [UNVERIFIED]. - *Disposition: cut.* What you lose: a headline for the demand letter and nothing else; the damages are already recoverable through Count I. What you gain: the motion loses its easiest win, and the defense cannot open its brief with your weakest count. Count II: Fraud. - *Element most at risk:* Rule 9(b) particularity: the who, what, when, where, and how. - *Conclusory allegation (¶ 51):* "Defendants made false representations to Plaintiff regarding her compensation and advancement." No speaker, no statement, no date, no place. Paragraphs 51–58 are all pleaded on information and belief. - *Defense argument:* dismissal under Rule 9(b), with a request that repleading be denied as futile. *Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp.*, 12 F.3d 1170, 1175 (2d Cir. 1993) [UNVERIFIED]. - *Disposition: fix, using only what you hold.* Replace ¶ 51 with: "On February 11, 2025, at approximately 2:00 p.m. in the Hudson Yards conference room, Vice President Marcus Feld told Plaintiff that her Q1 bonus 'is already approved and funded.' At the time, no bonus had been submitted for approval, as shown by the compensation records referenced in ¶ 34." If you cannot name the speaker, the date, and the words, cut the count instead. A 9(b) dismissal on your fraud count is the sentence the defense will quote in every later brief. Count III: Breach of contract. - *Element most at risk:* an enforceable promise beyond at-will employment. - *Where pleaded:* ¶¶ 61–64 reference "the parties' agreement" without identifying a document. - *Disposition: fix.* Plead the signed October 2023 offer letter by date and the bonus-vesting schedule by section, and attach it as Exhibit A. You told me you have it. Pleading the document converts this from a disclaimer fight into a construction question, which survives. Count I: Title VII retaliation. - *Element most at risk:* but-for causation under *Nassar*. - *Where pleaded:* the four-day sequence at ¶¶ 22–29 does the work, and it does it well. - *Disposition: keep.* The defense will attack causation on the merits, not the pleading. Do not add comparator allegations. You told me you do not have the pay data, and pleading comparators you cannot support hands them a Rule 11 letter. Cross-cutting traps. Group pleading is not an issue: one corporate defendant plus one individual, and ¶¶ 8–9 distinguish them. Shotgun incorporation at the head of each count ("realleges all preceding paragraphs") pulls the fraud allegations into Count I; drop the incorporation in Counts I and III so a 9(b) problem in Count II cannot bleed into them. Standing and jurisdiction are clean; supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims is properly pleaded at ¶ 6. What this complaint gives away. Paragraph 27 alleges Plaintiff "immediately reported the conduct to her direct supervisor": that is the first half of a *Faragher/Ellerth* defense pleaded for them. Paragraph 44 pins the first adverse act to November 2023, which starts the clock on the state claims and may put part of the contract theory outside the three-year window [verify against your June 14 deadline]. Counts I would cut. Count IV outright. Count II unless the February 11 statement can be pleaded with the specificity above by the filing date. What your answers changed. "No partial dismissal" is what moved Count IV from *fix* to *cut*. If leave to replead were acceptable I would have told you to plead it thinly and let them spend a motion on it. Keeping the contract count alive for discovery is why Count III gets Exhibit A attached rather than the vaguer "parties' agreement" language: pleading the document is what survives the motion without conceding the construction. Your answer about staying flexible on dates changed nothing: ¶ 44 already pins the first adverse act to November 2023, so that flexibility is gone whatever you prefer, and you should know it before you file.

Why this prompt is built the way it is

## Framework 1. **Elements first, by forum.** For each count, the elements the plaintiff must plead under the governing law, or an admission that you are unsure of them there. 2. **Element-to-paragraph map.** Every element gets the paragraph that pleads it. An element with no paragraph is the headline vulnerability. 3. **Fact versus label.** Quote the conclusory allegations verbatim with numbers. An allegation that simply recites the element's language is the target. 4. **The trap checklist.** Rule 9(b) particularity, group pleading, load-bearing "information and belief," shotgun incorporation, allegations that concede a defense on the face of the pleading. 5. **Standing, jurisdiction, preemption: count by count.** These are what plaintiff's counsel skips and defense counsel leads with. 6. **Rank by vulnerability**, with the defense's likely argument for the top counts. 7. **One of three dispositions per vulnerability:** fix with paragraph-level language, cut and name what is lost, or keep and accept the risk with a reason. 8. **Name what the complaint gives away**: admissions, dates that start a clock, theories that invite a counterclaim or fee shifting.