Research

Write the rule statement three ways and pick the winner

Drafts a pro-client, a neutral, and a pro-opponent version of the governing rule with the authority under each, then names the pivot word doing the work and tells you which sentence a court will actually adopt.

About 14 minadvancedLitigation

Your prompt5,144 characters

Still to fill in: Legal question, Your position, Controlling court

RoleYou are an appellate lawyer who knows the side that owns the rule statement usually wins the case before the application paragraph starts. You can write the same rule three ways and tell which version a judge will adopt without noticing the tilt. You refuse to hand over a rule that overreaches: a formulation the court rejects costs more than the honest one you could have led with, because it makes the panel read everything after it with suspicion.What I needWrite the rule statement three ways for this question: Legal question. I act for Your position in Controlling court, and the rule gets stated at Where the rule gets stated.InputsQuestion: Legal question Authority in hand: Authority in hand My position: Your position Controlling court: Controlling court Stage and audience: Where the rule gets statedHow to work this1. Open by stating whether Controlling court already has a controlling formulation. If it does, quote it verbatim with its cite. Every rule you then draft is a variation on that sentence. 2. Write three one-sentence rules a court could paste into an order: pro-client, neutral, and pro-opponent. If all three require the same showing, you have reworded rather than reframed. Redo them so the elements or the burden actually differ. 3. Under each rule, name the authority and quote the specific words in it that carry the formulation. Mark anything not drawn from Authority in hand as [UNVERIFIED - pull before citing]. 4. Name the pivot for each version (the single word or phrase doing the work) and say in one line what that word forecloses for the other side. 5. Test each rule against my facts: what it includes, what it excludes. A rule that does not reach my facts fails no matter how well supported it is. 6. Run a survival check on each: would a court in Controlling court at Where the rule gets stated adopt this sentence (Yes / With work / No) and name the precedent, statutory text, or policy that makes it hard. 7. Recommend one rule to lead with and one to fall back to if the court balks, and state plainly what the fallback costs me on the merits.Ask me firstBefore you draft anything, ask me these questions, then stop and wait: 1. Has the controlling court already stated this rule, and in what exact words? If there is existing language, my job is choosing which of their sentences to quote, not inventing a new one. 2. What is the strongest version of the other side's rule, in their words? The pro-opponent draft has to be their actual formulation, not a strawman I can knock down. 3. Which of my facts does the rule have to reach, and which of theirs does it have to exclude? A rule is defined by what it leaves out. 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 formatFirst, the controlling formulation quoted if one exists. Then three blocks (Pro-client, Neutral, Pro-opponent), each with the rule sentence, supporting authority with quoted language, the pivot word and what it forecloses, includes/excludes measured against my facts, and a survival check. Close with a recommendation naming the lead rule, the fallback, and the cost of retreating. End with one line naming the two of my answers that most changed these three formulations, and which rule you would have recommended without them. If an answer changed nothing, say so. It means I should not have been asked.Never do this- If these rule statements would fit any case raising this doctrine anywhere, they are too generic. A rule statement is a tool built for particular facts. Rewrite until mine fit inside it and the other side's do not. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," "courts generally hold," and "it depends": if it depends, say on what. Do not tell me to consult an attorney; I am the one signing this brief. - Every case, statute, and quoted phrase must come from my inputs or carry [UNVERIFIED - pull before citing]. Never invent a citation or a quotation, and never attribute a formulation to a court that did not use those words. A rule built on a fabricated quote loses the judge permanently. - Where you do not know whether the controlling court has adopted a formulation, say you do not know and mark the question open. Do not smooth over the gap with fluent prose. - Do not pad. Three rule sentences and their support is the deliverable. Do not wrap it in doctrinal background I did not ask for. Length is not value.Before you answer- Are the three rules actually different in what they require, or the same rule in three coats of paint? - Did I quote the words in the authority that support each formulation, rather than just citing the case? - Does the recommended rule reach my facts and exclude theirs when I test it both ways? - Would this analysis serve a different case under the same doctrine? It should not. - Is any citation unmarked and unverified?

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.

The sentence the judge repeats at argument gets written by a clerk with both briefs open, hunting for the overreach. Draft that bench memo as the clerk who has my rule in front of her. Name the strongest critique of my formulation from precedent or policy, write the counter-formulation the clerk would recommend instead, then rewrite my rule so it survives that critique without giving up the pivot word my case depends on.

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Only the winning formulation goes any further. Write the rule-and-application paragraph for the brief using the recommended formulation: rule sentence, one sentence of authority with the operative quote, two sentences applying it to my facts, and a closing sentence stating the outcome. Five sentences, no more, ready to drop into the argument section.

Before you run it

What to gather first

The legal question stated as the court would frame it
Your client's position and the result the rule has to drive
The controlling court and any existing formulation it has used
The authority you already have on both sides
Where the rule gets stated: trial court, appeal, first impression

Watch for

The model produces fluent rule statements attached to citations that do not support them. Read the cited pages yourself before adopting any formulation.
A rule that overreaches wins the motion and loses the appeal. Test every version against the worst facts in your own case, not just the best.
Some courts have expressly rejected sliding-scale or totality formulations in this area. Confirm the controlling court's posture before proposing one.
A rule that cannot be squared with en banc or Supreme Court authority is a non-starter no matter how well it fits your facts.
Do not paste privileged case assessments or client-confidential facts unless your firm's AI policy and the engagement terms allow it.

What comes back

The controlling formulation quoted if one exists, then three blocks (Pro-client, Neutral, Pro-opponent), each carrying the one-sentence rule, supporting authority with the operative words quoted, the pivot phrase and what it forecloses, an includes/excludes test run against the client's facts, and a Yes / With work / No survival check. Closes with a lead rule, a fallback, and the cost of retreating.

See an example of what you’ll get

*(After you answer the three questions: yes, the circuit already has a formulation and you sent me its exact words; their rule as they state it in the moving papers is that timing is one factor and cannot stand alone where the decision predated the complaint; the rule has to reach the March 3 complaint and the March 7 termination and has to push the February calendar entry out of the prima facie showing.)* Controlling formulation. The Ninth Circuit has said causation "may be inferred from timing alone where an adverse employment action follows on the heels of protected activity." *Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc.*, 281 F.3d 1054, 1065 (9th Cir. 2002) [UNVERIFIED - pull before citing]. Everything below is a variation on that sentence. Pro-client rule. Where an adverse employment action follows protected activity within days, temporal proximity alone establishes causation at the prima facie stage. - *Authority:* *Bell v. Clackamas County*, 341 F.3d 858, 865–66 (9th Cir. 2003) [UNVERIFIED]: "on the heels of"; *Villiarimo*, 281 F.3d at 1065: "from timing alone." - *Pivot:* "alone." It forecloses any argument that plaintiff must also produce evidence of pretext or animus to make out the prima facie case. - *Includes:* the March 3 complaint and March 7 firing. *Excludes:* the employer's February calendar entry, which goes to rebuttal rather than to the prima facie showing. - *Survival check:* Yes. The phrase is the court's own; nothing here asks the judge to write new law. Neutral rule. Temporal proximity may, in appropriate circumstances, suffice to establish causation at the prima facie stage of a retaliation claim. - *Authority:* *Coszalter v. City of Salem*, 320 F.3d 968, 977–78 (9th Cir. 2003) [UNVERIFIED]: rejecting bright-line timing rules. - *Pivot:* "may, in appropriate circumstances." It preserves the inference but hands the judge discretion to decide whether these are the circumstances. - *Includes:* my facts, probably. *Excludes:* nothing, which is the problem. - *Survival check:* Yes, but it does no work. Any judge will adopt it and then decide the case on instinct. Pro-opponent rule. Temporal proximity is one factor in the causation analysis and, standing alone, is insufficient where the employer contemplated the adverse action before the protected activity. - *Authority:* *Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden*, 532 U.S. 268, 272 (2001) (per curiam) [UNVERIFIED]: "Employers need not suspend previously planned transactions upon discovering that a Title VII suit has been filed." - *Pivot:* "contemplated ... before." It converts an ambiguous February calendar entry into a complete answer on causation. - *Survival check:* With work. *Breeden* involved a twenty-month gap and a decision already in motion; the defense has to stretch it to reach an undated internal note. Recommendation. Lead with the pro-client rule. It uses the circuit's own words, the pivot "alone" does the load-bearing work, and it asks the judge to apply existing language rather than extend it. Fall back to the neutral rule only if the court signals discomfort at argument: the cost of the retreat is that you lose the categorical answer to *Breeden* and the February entry becomes a fact question you have to win rather than an issue you have foreclosed. Assumptions. I assumed the February 14 entry is undated as to decision and ambiguous as to subject [verify - it is the whole case]. I assumed no controlling en banc decision has narrowed *Villiarimo* [verify]. What your answers changed. Handing me the circuit's own sentence is what makes the pro-client rule a variation rather than an invention, and that is the whole reason its survival check reads Yes. Without an existing formulation to quote, the pro-client rule is a construction, its check drops to With work, and I would have recommended leading with the neutral rule and arguing up. Your answer that the rule has to push the February entry out of the prima facie showing is what identified “alone” as the pivot. For a rule that only had to reach March 3 and March 7, the pivot is the timing phrase, the neutral rule reaches your facts just as well, and the recommendation flips to it.

Why this prompt is built the way it is

## Framework 1. **Start from the court's own words.** If the controlling court has already stated this rule, quote it. Every version drafted afterward is a variation on that sentence, not an invention. 2. **Three genuinely different rules.** Pro-client, neutral, pro-opponent. If they are the same rule reworded, the work is not done. The elements or the burden must actually differ. 3. **Authority under each, quoted.** The words in the case that support the formulation, not just a cite. 4. **Name the pivot.** The single word or phrase carrying the tilt ("alone," "may," "must," "substantial," "one factor among several") and what it forecloses. 5. **Test against the facts.** What each rule includes and excludes, measured against this client's facts. A rule that does not reach them fails however well supported it is. 6. **Survival check.** Would this court adopt this sentence (Yes / With work / No) and what precedent or policy makes it hard. 7. **Lead and fallback.** One rule to lead with, one to retreat to if the court balks, and what the retreat costs.