Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Strategy/Featured

Build the case theory

Turns your file into one sentence a juror can repeat, three pillars that prove it with record cites, and the headline fact you open on.

About 15 minadvancedLitigation

Your prompt4,988 characters

Still to fill in: Case summary, Who you represent, Court and governing law, Key evidence

RoleYou are a trial lawyer who has tried cases to verdict and knows the theory has to fit on a sticky note before it can fit in an opening statement. You build only from evidence you can actually put in front of the fact-finder, and you refuse to rest a pillar on a document nobody has authenticated or a witness who has not yet testified.What I needBuild the case theory for Who you represent in Court and governing law, tried to the Civil jury. One sentence, three pillars, the evidence under each, the other side's best theory, and the reason it fails.InputsCase summary: Case summary Who I represent: Who you represent Court and governing law: Court and governing law Fact-finder: Civil jury Key evidence: Key evidence Their likely theory: Their likely theoryHow to work this1. Write the theory as one sentence of 25 words or fewer, in plain English, with a person or a company as the actor and a verb that assigns responsibility. No elements, no statutory language, no "failed to comply with." 2. Test that sentence against the contested elements of the claims and defenses actually in play under Court and governing law. Name the element each clause carries. If an element nobody disputes is eating words, cut it. 3. Build exactly three pillars, one sentence each, each proving a different aspect of the theory. If two pillars rest on the same document or the same witness, collapse them and find a third. 4. Under each pillar, list two to four specific items from Key evidence: a document with its exhibit number, testimony with a page-line cite, or an admission. Mark anything not yet admitted or authenticated [ADMISSIBILITY - confirm]. 5. State the opposing theory the way their trial counsel would say it to the Civil jury, at full strength, in their vocabulary. Then explain why it fails using facts they cannot dispute, not by calling it implausible. 6. Give me a theme phrase of three to five words that survives repetition across opening, cross, and closing without sounding like advertising. 7. Name the headline fact I open on, and say in one sentence why it lands with the Civil jury in particular. 8. Name the worst fact for my side and tell me which pillar absorbs it and how.Ask me firstBefore you produce anything, ask me these questions, then stop and wait: 1. Which elements are genuinely contested under Court and governing law, and what has the other side stipulated or conceded, so the theory does not spend words on settled ground? 2. What has already been decided (summary judgment rulings, in limine orders, locked deposition admissions) that limits what I can argue at trial? 3. What is the single worst fact for my client, and is it coming in? Do not begin work until I answer. If I tell you to proceed anyway, state each assumption you are making at the top of your output and mark it [ASSUMPTION - verify].Output formatTheme phrase. One-sentence theory. Three numbered pillars, each with two to four evidence bullets carrying record cites. Headline fact with the one-line reason it works on this fact-finder. Their theory at full strength. Why it fails, in two or three sentences. The worst fact and the pillar that absorbs it. End with one line naming the two of my answers that most changed the theory or the pillars, and what you would have built without them. If an answer changed nothing, say so. It means I should not have been asked.Never do this- A theory that would fit any breach-of-contract case or any retaliation case in any courtroom is too generic. Rebuild it from the names, dates, and documents in this file. - No hedging inside the theory or the pillars. "Arguably," "it depends," "it should be noted," and "the evidence suggests" have no business in a sentence meant to be repeated in a jury room. Do not tell me to consult an attorney. I am the one trying this case. - Every exhibit number, page-line cite, statute, or case must come from my inputs or carry [UNVERIFIED - check before you use it]. Never invent an exhibit number, a transcript cite, or a quotation from a witness. - If you cannot tell whether a document is in evidence or whether an element is contested, say you do not know. Do not smooth over the gap with fluent prose. - No padding. Three pillars, not five. If pillar three is thin, say so in one sentence instead of dressing it up.Before you answer- Read the theory aloud. Under 25 words? Could a juror repeat it at the afternoon break? - Does each pillar prove something different, or do two of them prove the same point twice? - Is every exhibit number and page-line cite traceable to what I pasted, or marked [UNVERIFIED]? - Swap the names out: would this theory work in someone else's case? If so, it is not built on this record. - Did I state their theory at its strongest, or a version that was easy to knock over?

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.

Across the aisle, the other trial lawyer has my theory taped to her monitor and a closing to write. Take her chair as the lawyer trying this case against me. Write the single line you would deliver to make a juror doubt it, and name the pillar you would spend your entire cross on. Then come back to my side and rewrite that pillar and the headline fact so the line loses its bite, or tell me the pillar cannot be saved and the case is better tried on two.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Before any evidence comes in, the jury hears this theory out loud and standing up. Write the 90-second opening statement built on this theory: open on the headline fact, use the theme phrase exactly once, carry the three pillars in the order they will be proved at trial, and end on the specific relief. Do not open with "this is a case about."

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • The case summary, including posture and trial date
  • Court, venue, and governing law; the jury pool is part of the theory
  • Whether this is tried to a jury, a judge, or an arbitration panel
  • Key documents with exhibit numbers and deposition page-line cites
  • Any in limine or summary judgment rulings that limit what you can argue

Watch for

  • A theory that requires the fact-finder to disbelieve unrebutted testimony or ignore an admitted document is not aggressive, it is unwinnable. Test each pillar against what the other side has already locked in.
  • The model will invent exhibit numbers and deposition page-line cites that look correct. Verify every record cite against your exhibit list and transcripts before any of it reaches an opening.
  • Three pillars is the cap. Each pillar past three costs the fact-finder's memory of the first three.
  • The theory that plays to a jury is rarely the theory that plays to a judge on a bench trial or a three-arbitrator panel. Confirm the fact-finder before you commit.
  • Case theory is core work product. Do not paste privileged strategy or client-confidential facts unless your firm's AI policy and the engagement terms permit it.

What comes back

A theme phrase, a one-sentence theory of 25 words or fewer, three numbered pillars each carrying two to four evidence bullets with record cites, the headline fact with the reason it lands on this fact-finder, the opposing theory at full strength, a two-to-three sentence rebuttal, and the worst fact with the pillar that absorbs it.

See an example of what you’ll get
*(After you answer the three questions, say, BetaCorp concedes formation and contests only repudiation and mitigation, and the worst fact is that Acme's own March invoices were 11 days late.)* Theme phrase: "Rewrite after the work." One-sentence theory: BetaCorp tried to rewrite the deal after Acme had already done the work. (13 words. Carries repudiation (the contested element) and nothing else.) Pillar 1. Acme performed first, at its own cost. - Six timely payments, Feb-Apr (Pl. Ex. 4, bank records). - March 1 warehouse lease signed in reliance (Pl. Ex. 7). - 30 hires onboarded in March (Pl. Ex. 9, payroll register). Pillar 2. BetaCorp's exit was unilateral, not a negotiation. - April 14, 2:14 a.m. email: "Cannot perform." (Pl. Ex. 12.) - COO Vance's April 11 call demanding a "reset" (Rivera depo 47:12–48:3). - CHRO admission that BetaCorp made no delivery offer after April 14 (Rivera depo 92:6–14). Pillar 3. Acme covered at market and paid the difference itself. - Three replacement-vendor invoices totaling $1.42M (Pl. Ex. C-1 to C-3). - Procurement lead Ochoa on the 14-day timeline that made three bids the practical limit (Ochoa depo 61:2–19). [ADMISSIBILITY - confirm Ochoa is on the trial witness list.] Headline fact: The email arrived at 2:14 a.m. and said four words: "We cannot perform. Sorry." It works on a jury because the time stamp and the brevity do the work: nobody drafts that sentence at 2 a.m. as an invitation to negotiate. Their theory, at full strength: "These two companies had been talking about price pressure since January. Acme knew BetaCorp was underwater. The April email was one more message in a long conversation, and instead of picking up the phone, Acme ran to three new vendors and sent us the bill." Why it fails: The email's own words are unconditional, and BetaCorp never made a single delivery offer afterward: not one, on their own witness's admission. A party still negotiating proposes terms. BetaCorp proposed nothing. Worst fact and where it lands: Acme's March invoices went out 11 days late. Pillar 1 absorbs it: the lateness is undisputed and irrelevant to whether BetaCorp performed, and raising it first in opening takes it away from them. If they argue it excused performance, that is a first-breach defense they did not plead. [ASSUMPTION - verify BetaCorp's answer does not plead prior breach.] What your answers changed. Your answer that BetaCorp concedes formation and contests only repudiation and mitigation is what shrank the theory to thirteen words. Without it the sentence has to carry formation too, and Pillar 1 argues that a contract existed rather than that Acme performed first. Your answer that Acme's March invoices went out 11 days late is why the last section exists and why Pillar 1 leads with the payment record; without it you get the same three pillars and an opening that walks into the lateness cold.
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **One sentence.** The theory is a single sentence, 25 words or fewer, that a juror repeats at the break. "BetaCorp tried to rewrite the deal after Acme had already done the work." A person or a company is the actor; the verb assigns responsibility. 2. **Test against the contested elements.** Name the element each clause of the sentence carries. Words spent on uncontested elements are wasted words. 3. **Three pillars.** One sentence each, each proving a different aspect. Two pillars resting on the same document are one pillar. 4. **Evidence per pillar.** Two to four specific items: exhibit number, page-line cite, or admission. Anything not yet admitted gets flagged. 5. **Their theory at full strength.** State it the way their trial counsel would, then defeat it with facts they cannot dispute. 6. **Theme phrase.** Three to five words that survive repetition in opening, cross, and closing. 7. **Headline fact.** The one fact you open on, plus why it lands with this particular fact-finder. 8. **The worst fact.** Name it, and say which pillar absorbs it.