Workflow

Prep to argue a hearing from one page

Produces a 60-second opening, the questions the bench will actually ask with cite-ready answers, a two-tab binder, and the one sentence you want the judge repeating after you sit down.

About 12 minintermediateLitigation

Your prompt5,205 characters

Still to fill in: Hearing type, What is being argued, Court, judge, and local practice

RoleYou are a litigator who argues from one page because you have watched good lawyers lose the bench while flipping through a three-inch binder. You prepare for the questions, not the speech: you assume the judge has read the briefs, has exactly one problem with your position, and will interrupt inside ninety seconds. You answer the question that was asked, in the first sentence, and you never say "I'll get to that."What I needBuild my prep sheet for the Hearing type in Court, judge, and local practice. I appear as Movant. Constraints: Constraints and what has changed. In the room: Who else is in the room.InputsWhat is being argued: What is being argued Hearing type: Hearing type Court, judge, local practice: Court, judge, and local practice My role: Movant Constraints: Constraints and what has changed Who else is in the room: Who else is in the roomHow to work this1. Write the opening as exactly three sentences: the relief, the rule that grants it, the fact that makes it obvious. No procedural history and no throat-clearing past the greeting. 2. Predict the three or four questions the bench will actually ask, phrased in the judge's voice. Draw them from the weakest part of my position and the strongest part of theirs, not softballs. 3. Answer each in two sentences with a short-form cite I can read off the page. Record cites carry a docket entry or transcript page. Mark any authority not in my inputs [UNVERIFIED - pull before the hearing]. 4. Build the binder: two tabs, one document each, chosen because I will hand them up or read from them. 5. Write the walk-away sentence: one sentence, under twenty words, sayable while standing to leave. 6. Name the concession: the one point I give up if pressed, and the exact words that concede it without conceding the motion. 7. Handle contingencies under Court, judge, and local practice: check-in and courtesy copies, what changes if there is a tentative, what to say if the matter is submitted without argument, and what to do if the judge asks about something never briefed.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Every assumption about what the briefs say, what the standard of review is, and what the judge has already decided. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. Flag every citation I did not supply. Where this is weakest. The one prepared answer that will not survive the follow-up question, and the question I have no good answer to. Name the question number. What only you can decide. The calls I left to you, each as options with tradeoffs. At minimum: whether to concede the weakest point at the lectern. Conceding buys credibility for the rest of the argument and often gets you the relief you actually need, but it forfeits an issue you may not recover on appeal, and if the client is in the room, it looks like a loss in real time. Holding everything preserves the record but risks the bench treating the whole motion as reflexive. Also yours: whether to argue at all if a tentative already favors you, since the only thing argument can do there is talk the judge back out of it. What would make this materially better. What would sharpen the next pass most: the tentative ruling, the judge's prior orders on this issue, the reply brief, or the transcript of the last conference. Rank by impact.Output formatOne page. Sixty-second opening (three sentences). A Q-and-A table: Question in the judge's voice | Two-sentence answer with cite. Binder index: Tab 1, Tab 2, and the one-page outline. Walk-away sentence, set off. The planned concession with its exact words. A logistics checklist. Contingency plan. Then the four closing sections.Never do this- If this prep sheet would work for any motion in any court, it is too generic. Rebuild it from this issue, this judge, and this posture. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," "we respectfully submit," and "it depends." Do not tell me to consult an attorney. I am the one standing up. - Every case, rule, and record cite must come from my inputs or be marked [UNVERIFIED - pull before the hearing]. Never invent a pin cite or a quotation. Reading a fabricated cite to a judge ends more than the motion. - Where you do not know the standard of review or how Court, judge, and local practice treats the issue, say you do not know rather than smoothing over the gap with a confident-sounding answer. - Do not pad. If the argument is one point, the sheet is one point. Length is not value. This has to be readable at a lectern in three seconds.Before you answer- Could I argue the whole hearing from the one-page outline alone? - Is every answer two sentences or fewer, with a cite I can read while standing? - Are the predicted questions hostile, or did I write questions I would enjoy answering? - Is the walk-away one sentence, under twenty words? - Would this sheet be useless in any other hearing? It should be. - Is any citation here something I generated rather than something I was given?

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.

My briefing has a gap in it, and the person most likely to have found it has already recommended against me: the judge's law clerk, author of the bench memo, working from both briefs and no sympathy. Answer as the lawyer who wrote that memo. What question goes at the top of the judge's list: the one that exposes the gap my briefing danced around? Add it to the Q table with an honest two-sentence answer, and if there is no good answer, say so and tell me what to ask for instead.

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

You get to your feet and the courtroom is quiet. Write the ninety-second version for a silent bench: what I say if the judge asks nothing and leaves me to fill the time. Lead with the strongest fact, take the weakest point head-on before they do, and land on the walk-away sentence.

Before you run it

What to gather first

What is being argued and what the briefs already say
The judge and their individual practices: argument time, tentatives, tech at the lectern
Any tentative or written ruling issued before the hearing
The authority you actually hold and have read
What you would accept if you cannot get everything you asked for

Watch for

Individual practices control check-in, courtesy copies, tentatives, tech at the lectern, and whether argument happens at all. Confirm chambers practice before you plan around a rule.
Never read a citation from a page you have not verified. The model can produce a plausible short-form cite for a case it cannot confirm exists. Pull every one in Westlaw or Lexis first.
If a tentative ruling issues before the hearing, the argument you prepared is the wrong argument. Rebuild the sheet around what the tentative got wrong.
New authority decided after briefing usually requires a notice of supplemental authority before you can cite it from the lectern. Check the rule, then file it.
A concession made out loud can bind you. Decide in advance what you are willing to give up, and do not improvise it under pressure with the client in the gallery.

What comes back

One page: a three-sentence 60-second opening; a Q-and-A table with each question in the judge's voice and a two-sentence cite-ready answer; a binder index of two tabs plus the one-page outline; a set-off walk-away sentence under twenty words; the planned concession with its exact words; a logistics checklist; and a contingency plan for a tentative, a submission, or an unbriefed question. Closes with Assumptions / Where this is weakest / What only you can decide / What would make this better.

See an example of what you’ll get

*(Movant, oral argument on Rule 12(b)(6), S.D.N.Y., 15 minutes per side, no tentative.)* Sixty-second opening. "Your Honor, we ask the Court to dismiss Counts II and IV. Count II pleads fraud entirely on information and belief, which Rule 9(b) does not allow; Count IV pleads a termination, which New York does not treat as extreme and outrageous conduct. Plaintiff has labels where the Rule requires a speaker, a statement, and a date." Questions the bench will ask | In the judge's voice | Answer | |---|---| | "Isn't the March 3 email enough to infer fraud?" | "At the pleading stage the question is what the complaint alleges, not what an exhibit might show. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Paragraphs 51–58 identify no speaker, no statement, and no date." | | "Why shouldn't I just give leave to replead?" | "You can, and if you do we ask that it be the last one. Plaintiff has amended twice; the second amendment added paragraphs 51–58, which are the same allegations reworded." | | "A four-day gap between the complaint and the firing, that isn't circumstantial evidence?" | "Temporal proximity can support a retaliation inference, but Count IV is IIED, and New York requires conduct beyond all bounds of decency. Murphy v. Am. Home Prods., 461 N.E.2d 86, 90 (N.Y. 1983). A lawful termination four days later does not meet that bar." | | "You're moving against everything. Why should I take any of it seriously?" | "We are not. We did not move against Counts I or III. We moved against the two counts that fail on their face." | Binder. Tab 1: the complaint, ¶¶ 51–58 and ¶ 73 flagged. Tab 2: Murphy at 90 and Mills at 1175, one page. Plus the one-page outline. Walk-away sentence. "Plaintiff has labels, not facts, and labels do not survive Rule 9(b)." Planned concession. If the bench presses on Count IV's timeline, give the inference, not the count: *"We accept for purposes of this motion that the timing is close, Your Honor. Timing goes to causation. It does not supply the extreme-and-outrageous element, which is what Count IV lacks."* Do not concede that the March 3 email is a protected complaint. Logistics. Check in at 8:45 for the 9:00 calendar. Courtesy copies were delivered Tuesday. No tech at the lectern under Judge Furman's individual rules: paper copy of the brief and the one-pager only. Phone off, not silent. Contingencies. If the matter is submitted, do not argue; ask leave to file a two-page notice of supplemental authority on the Second Circuit decision from last week. If the judge asks about the arbitration clause, say we have not raised it and are not waiving it, and offer supplemental briefing. --- Assumptions I made. That Rule 9(b) was briefed as to Count II and IIED elements as to Count IV [verify - you said no reply on IIED, so the record may be thinner than the answers assume]. That plaintiff has amended twice [verify - this drives the futility answer]. That Iqbal, Mills, and Murphy are cited in your brief; if not, all three are [UNVERIFIED - pull before the hearing]. That New York substantive law governs Count IV [safe on your description]. Where this is weakest. Question 2. "Ask that it be the last one" is a soft answer, and Judge Furman grants leave freely. If he signals amendment, you win the count and face the same complaint in twenty-one days. There is no strong answer here. The real fix is to ask for dismissal with prejudice as to the fraud theory specifically, not the count. What only you can decide. Whether to concede Count IV's timing at the lectern. Conceding buys you credibility for the Rule 9(b) argument, which is your real motion, but the GC is in the gallery and will hear a concession as a loss, and you cannot un-say it if the case reaches summary judgment on retaliation. Holding the line preserves everything and risks the bench reading the motion as reflexive. Also yours: whether to raise the new Second Circuit decision at all. Filing the notice signals you are still litigating the issue; staying quiet keeps a clean record if the panel decision cuts both ways. What would make this materially better. (1) Judge Furman's prior orders on Rule 9(b) repleading: the answer to question 2 turns entirely on his practice. (2) The reply brief, so the answers match what you already argued. (3) The docket entry numbers for the two prior amendments, so the futility answer carries a record cite.

Why this prompt is built the way it is

## Framework 1. **Sixty-second opening.** Three sentences: the relief, the rule that grants it, the fact that makes it obvious. No procedural history. 2. **Questions, not a speech.** Predict what the bench will actually ask: the questions that come from the weakest part of your position, phrased in the judge's voice. 3. **Two-sentence answers with a short cite.** Readable off the page while standing. Record cites carry a docket entry or transcript page. 4. **Two tabs.** Two documents you will physically hand up or read from. Everything else stays in the bag. 5. **The walk-away.** One sentence under twenty words: what the judge repeats to the clerk afterward. 6. **The planned concession.** The point you will give up if pressed, and the words that give it up without giving up the motion. 7. **Contingencies.** Tentative ruling, no argument, matter submitted, continued, or the judge asks about something not briefed.