Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Strategy

Position a settlement

Prices your BATNA as an actual number, sets the opening and the floor against your client's authority, and sequences the concessions on triggers instead of the clock.

About 15 minadvancedLitigation

Your prompt5,329 characters

Still to fill in: Case summary, Who you represent, Client authority, Forum and cost-shifting rules

RoleYou are a senior litigator who has settled hundreds of cases and knows that the anchor and the walk-away do most of the work. You price the alternative to settling before you price the settlement, you never move without a reciprocal move, and you refuse to give a client a number you cannot show the arithmetic for.What I needBuild the settlement strategy for Who you represent in Forum and cost-shifting rules. This gets negotiated in the Private mediation, and my written authority is Client authority.InputsCase summary: Case summary Who I represent: Who you represent Forum and cost-shifting rules: Forum and cost-shifting rules Where this gets negotiated: Private mediation Client authority: Client authorityHow to work this1. State the BATNA as a number, not a posture: expected outcome at trial, minus fees and costs from here, adjusted for time to judgment and collectability. Put the arithmetic on one line so I can check it. 2. Give three scenarios with explicit probabilities that sum to 100. Label each probability [anchored] if it comes from comparables or rulings I gave you, [estimated] if it is your judgment. Do not mix the two silently. 3. Set the opening number and write the one-paragraph justification a neutral could carry into the other room without me in it. 4. Set the floor and reconcile it against Client authority. If the analysis says the floor should sit above my authority, say so plainly and tell me what I need to show the client to move it. 5. Build the move sequence on triggers, not on the clock. Each concession states the reciprocal move that unlocks it and the size of the step, and the steps shrink as they approach the floor. 6. Price the non-monetary terms in dollars: release scope, confidentiality, tax characterization, structure, no-rehire, reference, and say which I trade first and which I never trade. 7. Name the number at which I should recommend trying the case, and the two facts that would move it in either direction. 8. Flag anything in Forum and cost-shifting rules that changes the math: fee-shifting, offer-of-judgment consequences, prejudgment interest, caps, liens, tax withholding, and mark [CHECK] whatever you cannot confirm from my inputs.Ask me firstBefore you produce anything, ask me these questions, then stop and wait: 1. What is my client's real alternative to settling: can they fund a trial to verdict, and does a public judgment create exposure beyond this case, such as other claimants, an insurance tower, or a disclosure obligation? 2. Who is actually paying on the other side, who holds authority in the room, and is there an insurer participating under a reservation of rights? 3. What non-monetary terms are genuinely in play: release scope, confidentiality, a neutral reference, no-rehire, structure, tax characterization? 4. What has already been exchanged, including any offer of judgment, and does any of it carry fee-shifting or interest consequences? 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 formatBATNA with the arithmetic shown. A value range table: scenario, number, probability, anchored or estimated. Opening number with the paragraph a neutral can carry. Floor, reconciled to my authority. A move sequence as numbered steps, each with its trigger and step size. Non-monetary terms priced. The try-the-case number. A short list of forum rules to check. End with one line naming the two of my answers that most moved the BATNA, the opening, or the floor, and where you would have set them without them. If an answer changed nothing, say so. It means I should not have been asked.Never do this- A settlement plan built on round percentages that would fit any case in any court is too generic. Use my numbers, my forum, my client's authority, and what has already been exchanged. - No hedging. "It depends" is not a valuation; if you need an input to price something, name the input and ask for it. Do not tell me to consult an attorney. I am the one holding the authority letter. - Every comparable verdict, statute, offer-of-judgment rule, or fee provision must come from my inputs or carry [UNVERIFIED - confirm before you rely on it]. Never invent a comparable verdict, a settlement average, or a case cite. - Where you do not know the local rule on fee-shifting, interest, or liens, say you do not know. A confident number resting on a rule you guessed at is worse than no number. - No padding. If the honest plan is four moves and a floor, write four moves and a floor. Length is not value in a document I read in the hallway at mediation.Before you answer- Is the BATNA an actual number with visible arithmetic, or a description of trial? - Do the probabilities sum to 100, and is each labeled anchored or estimated? - Does the floor reconcile with Client authority, and if it does not, did I say so? - Did I price the non-monetary terms, or did I treat this as money only? - Swap the numbers out: would this plan fit anyone's case? It should not. - Is any comparable, rule, or cite here unverified and unmarked?

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.

In the other room sits opposing counsel with an authority letter of her own and a client who wants this closed under a number she has not shared. Work the caucus as the lawyer on that side. Read my opening and my message: what do you conclude about where I will actually land, and what counter would you design to make me move too far too early? Then come back to my side and fix the two places where my sequence leaks information about the floor.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

The mediator reads one thing before walking into the other room. Draft the confidential mediator statement, one page, mediator's eyes only: the BATNA in words the neutral can repeat across the hall, the two facts that make trial genuinely dangerous for the other side, the non-monetary terms I will trade, and the one thing I do not want carried out of this room.

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • Case posture, liability picture, and the realistic damages range
  • Forum, trial date, and any fee-shifting or offer-of-judgment rule in play
  • The client's written settlement authority
  • What has already been exchanged: demands, counters, statutory offers
  • Whether an insurer is on the paper and under what reservation

Watch for

  • Anything you write about valuation can end up in front of the client, an insurer, or in a later bad-faith or fee proceeding. Mark settlement analysis privileged and Rule 408 material where that applies, and write only numbers you would defend under oath.
  • Probabilities are the softest part of any settlement model. Calibrate them against the trial team's consensus and comparables you can actually name, not against a figure the model produced.
  • Offer-of-judgment rules, fee-shifting statutes, prejudgment interest, lien obligations, and tax characterization change the arithmetic and vary sharply by forum. Confirm each before it drives a move.
  • Never share the floor outside the client team, including with a neutral who asks helpfully. Mediators carry information both directions.
  • Confirm settlement authority in writing before you open. An opening number without authority behind it is a problem you cannot walk back.

What comes back

A BATNA with visible arithmetic; a value-range table showing scenario, number, probability, and anchored-versus-estimated label; an opening number with a paragraph a neutral can carry to the other room; a floor reconciled against the client's authority; a numbered move sequence keyed to triggers with shrinking steps; non-monetary terms priced and ordered; the try-the-case number; and a list of forum rules to verify.

See an example of what you’ll get
*(After you answer the four questions: client can fund trial but the CEO is deposed in a parallel matter in November, the EPLI carrier is participating under a reservation on punitives, and a Rule 68 offer of $250K was served in March.)* BATNA (defense). Trial in 9 months. Cost from here: $650K. Probability-weighted exposure: $712K. Add the Rule 68 backstop: if plaintiff recovers less than $250K, post-offer costs shift to her, which caps the tail. Net: settling anywhere under roughly $1.36M beats trying it, before counting the CEO's time and the deposition transcript that would become public. Arithmetic: $712K exposure + $650K defense cost = $1.362M. Value range | Scenario | Number | Probability | Basis | |---|---|---|---| | Plaintiff verdict with fees | $1.9M | 15% | [anchored]: division comparables you supplied | | Compensatory only | $890K | 45% | [anchored]: back pay $310K plus front pay and emotional distress at observed multiples | | Defense verdict | $0 | 40% | [estimated]: causation is genuinely contested after the MSJ denial | Weighted: $685K, plus $27K prejudgment interest exposure = $712K. Opening: $185K. The paragraph for the mediator: "The court denied summary judgment on causation, not on pretext, and the record shows three documented performance conversations before the complaint was made. The company is prepared to resolve this now to avoid the cost of trial, but it is not prepared to pay a number that treats a denied motion as a finding of liability." Floor: $600K, which is exactly my written authority. The analysis says the real walk-away is closer to $700K once fees and the CEO's November availability are priced. Say this to the client now, not at 6 p.m. on mediation day. To move authority to $850K, the GC will want the causation section of the MSJ order and the comparables table. Move sequence 1. Open $185K with the pretext framing. No movement until plaintiff comes off the $2.4M demand. 2. To $310K only if plaintiff moves below $1.5M. Frame as the back-pay number, which makes the step principled rather than reactive. 3. To $475K if plaintiff reaches $900K and the mediator signals real authority in the room. 4. To $600K as a bracketed final, conditioned on a full release, confidentiality, and a resignation letter. Steps shrink to $50K increments below this. Non-monetary terms priced: full release including the pending EEOC charge, $75K. Confidentiality with liquidated damages, $40K: trade this second, plaintiff's counsel will fight it. Neutral reference, $0 to us and worth real money to her: trade it first. No-rehire, $0. Do not trade the release scope. Try the case at: anything above $850K, and that is an authority line, not an economic one. The arithmetic above says any number under $1.362M beats trying it; $850K is simply the ceiling the GC can reach with board sign-off, so above it the recommendation is not that trial is the better bet, it is that we are out of authority and the client has to decide whether to buy more. What would move it: an adverse in limine ruling on the comparator evidence (moves it up $150K), or the CEO becoming unavailable for trial (moves it up, badly). [CHECK] Whether the March Rule 68 offer was properly served and remains operative after the amended complaint. If it lapsed, the cost-shifting backstop above disappears and the floor moves. What your answers changed. That the client can actually fund a verdict is what makes the $185K opening and the $850K try-the-case line real numbers rather than posture. Tell me they cannot fund trial and the BATNA collapses, the opening moves to something plaintiff will engage with on day one, and the floor becomes whatever the GC can be talked into. The March Rule 68 offer is the second mover: it is the only thing capping the downside tail on the $1.362M BATNA, and it is why the single [CHECK] at the bottom is about service and operativeness rather than about the mediator. Your answer about the EPLI carrier's reservation on punitives changed nothing in these numbers. The $1.9M scenario already carries the punitive exposure at 15%, and a reservation decides who writes that check, not how large it is. It will decide who holds authority in the room on mediation day; it did not move the BATNA, the opening, or the floor.
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **BATNA first, as a number.** What happens if this does not settle: expected outcome at trial, minus fees and costs to get there, adjusted for time to judgment and collectability. Show the arithmetic. 2. **Three scenarios, explicit probabilities.** Best, mid, and worst, summing to 100. Label each probability as anchored in something you were given or estimated. 3. **Opening number with a carryable justification.** The mediator has to be able to repeat it in the other room without you. 4. **Floor tested against authority.** If the analysis says the floor should be higher than the authority, say so. That is a client conversation, not a rounding error. 5. **Moves on triggers, not the clock.** Every concession names the reciprocal move that unlocks it. Steps shrink as you approach the floor. 6. **Price the non-monetary terms.** Release scope, confidentiality, tax characterization, structure, no-rehire, references. In dollars. 7. **The try-the-case number.** The number below which you recommend a verdict, and the two facts that would move it. 8. **Forum arithmetic.** Fee-shifting, offer-of-judgment rules, prejudgment interest, caps, and liens change every figure above.