Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Workflow

Outline a mediator-eyes-only mediation statement

Builds the confidential statement that gets the mediator arguing your number in the other room: honest risk math, a defensible figure, and one sentence they can repeat verbatim.

About 15 minintermediateLitigation

Your prompt5,160 characters

Still to fill in: Case theory and pillars, Exposure analysis, Forum and governing law

RoleYou are the lawyer mediators quietly hope they draw. You treat the mediator-eyes-only statement as a working document for the person who has to carry your number across the hall, so you hand them honest risk math instead of advocacy in a costume. You refuse to write a number you cannot derive on the page, and you never end a statement without one sentence the mediator can repeat word for word.What I needOutline a mediator-eyes-only mediation statement for Plaintiff / claimant in a matter governed by Forum and governing law. Build it on my theory and my own exposure numbers, and end with a specific procedural ask of Mediator and format.InputsCase theory and pillars: Case theory and pillars Exposure analysis (my numbers): Exposure analysis Who I represent: Plaintiff / claimant Forum and governing law: Forum and governing law Negotiation history: Negotiation history Mediator and format: Mediator and formatHow to work this1. Compress Case theory and pillars into exactly three sentences that could open a trial. No procedural windup, no "this case arises from." 2. State posture in two lines: what has been decided, what is pending, and the next calendared date that shifts leverage. 3. Rebuild Exposure analysis as a best / mid / worst table (dollars and probability per row), then compute the risk-adjusted number and show the multiplication. If my figures do not reconcile, say so. 4. Add the cost of not settling: fees to verdict, fee-shifting exposure under Forum and governing law, executive time, precedent and publicity risk. 5. State the number, then derive it from the risk-adjusted figure. It must read as a conclusion from the arithmetic above it, not as a demand. 6. List what the other side buys at that number, including the specific deposition, hearing, or filing date they get to skip. 7. Write one concrete ask of the mediator: anchor at our number in session one, hold their opening until we have moved once, press them on a named fact. Generic requests do not count. 8. Close with the sentence you want repeated in the other room: under 30 words, quoted, understandable by a business client.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Every factual, legal, and valuation assumption behind the statement. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. If I gave you a probability and you carried it forward without testing it, say so. Where this is weakest. The two or three points the other room will attack hardest. Name the specific paragraph or number, not "the damages section." Include any place where my own exposure figures look self-serving to a neutral. What only you can decide. The judgment calls I deliberately left open. Present each as options with tradeoffs. At minimum: whether to disclose the true floor or ceiling to the mediator (faster convergence, but you lose the room's belief in your bracket) or hold it back (preserves credibility on the number, risks a wasted session); and whether to open with a number or invite theirs first. What would make this materially better. The specific document, ruling, or client decision that would most improve the next pass: the MSJ ruling, the comparator verdicts, written settlement authority, or the mediator's stated protocol. Rank by impact.Output formatHeaded MEDIATION STATEMENT - CONFIDENTIAL, FOR THE MEDIATOR'S EYES ONLY, then: Theme (3 sentences); Where the case stands (2 lines); Honest exposure (best/mid/worst table with dollars, probabilities, risk-adjusted total); Cost of not settling; Our number and why; What the other side gets; Ask of the mediator; carry-across sentence in quotation marks. Then the four closing sections.Never do this- If this statement would fit any employment case in any forum, it is too generic. A neutral should know which case it is by the second paragraph. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," and "we are confident." Do not tell me to consult an attorney. I am the attorney walking into the room. - Every verdict, settlement comparable, statute, or fee-shifting rule you cite must come from my inputs or carry [UNVERIFIED - check before sending]. Never invent a comparable verdict, a docket number, or a deposition page cite. - Where you do not know how Forum and governing law treats fees, caps, or offer-of-judgment consequences, say you do not know. Do not smooth over the gap with confident prose in a document a neutral will read closely. - Do not pad. Mediators stop reading at page three. Length is not value.Before you answer- Does the risk-adjusted number actually follow from the probabilities I supplied, and did I show the arithmetic? - Is the theme three sentences, or did a fourth sneak in? - Would a mediator in a different case get any use from this document? They should not. - Is every comparable, verdict, or authority either from my inputs or marked unverified? - Is the carry-across sentence under 30 words and free of legal jargon?

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.

The mediator is not an audience for advocacy: she is the one who has to make my exposure math stand up when I am not there to defend it. She has a room that does not want my figure and my statement in front of her. Grade it as the neutral who has to carry that number across the hall: name the two figures you would push back on and the one fact you would want before you would carry it. Then rewrite the exposure section so it survives that conversation, and tell me which part of my ask you would refuse to make.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Everyone hears the joint session, including the people you have been describing. Write the joint-session version: a five-minute opening script for the public room. Same theme, no exposure math, nothing the other side could quote back at trial. Open with the fact the other side cannot explain, keep it under 700 words, and end on a line that makes settling look like the reasonable person's choice rather than a concession.

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • Case theme and the two or three pillars that support it
  • Your own damages model: best, mid, worst, with probabilities
  • Client's settlement authority and where the real floor or ceiling sits
  • Every prior demand and offer, with dates
  • The mediator's style: evaluative, facilitative, shuttle only, joint session

Watch for

  • Mediation statements are usually protected by statute or the mediator's agreement, but the protection is not uniform. Confirm the rule in your forum before you put candid exposure math on paper.
  • Do not give the mediator your true floor or ceiling without express client authority. Once a neutral knows it, they will negotiate against it all day.
  • Fee-shifting, offer-of-judgment rules, and damages caps drive the number more than liability does, and they vary sharply by forum. Verify before relying on any figure here.
  • The model will accept your probability estimates at face value. If your best/mid/worst percentages are optimistic, every downstream number is wrong in the same direction.
  • Assume the mediator remembers you. Anything you would not want quoted back in a future case with the same neutral does not belong in the statement.

What comes back

A confidential mediator-eyes-only statement: three-sentence theme, two-line posture, a best/mid/worst exposure table with dollars and probabilities plus the risk-adjusted arithmetic, the cost of not settling, the number and its derivation, what the other side buys, a specific procedural ask of the mediator, and one quotable carry-across sentence. Closes with assumptions, weakest points, the calls left to you, and what would improve the next pass.

See an example of what you’ll get
MEDIATION STATEMENT - CONFIDENTIAL, FOR THE MEDIATOR'S EYES ONLY Theme. Acme's CHRO testified that CEO Hayes ordered Ms. Reyes's termination four days after her third documented complaint about unpaid overtime. Her personnel file contains no performance criticism of any kind before that week. This is a temporal-proximity retaliation case in a forum that gives plaintiffs the benefit of every inference at summary judgment. Where the case stands. MSJ fully briefed, argued Feb 11; Judge Corley signaled from the bench that the causation question "looks like a jury issue." Trial set June 8; the CHRO's trial deposition is May 14. Honest exposure (defense view). | Outcome | Amount | Probability | Weighted | |---|---|---|---| | Defense verdict | $0 | 35% | $0 | | Compensatory only | $950,000 | 40% | $380,000 | | Full verdict + FEHA fees | $2,400,000 | 25% | $600,000 | | Risk-adjusted | | | $980,000 | Cost of not settling. Remaining defense fees to verdict: ~$650,000. FEHA one-way fee-shifting means a plaintiff verdict of any size adds her fees, currently ~$410,000 and growing. Add roughly 120 hours of Hayes and Chen's time in trial prep and testimony. Total realistic cost of trying this case, before any verdict: $650K plus exposure. Our number. $725,000. That is below the $980,000 risk-adjusted figure and roughly the cost of trial alone. Above $1.63M (the $650,000 of remaining defense fees plus the $980,000 risk-adjusted verdict), our own math says trying the case is the better bet. Between $725,000 and that figure the question stops being arithmetic. What plaintiff gets at $725,000. Money this quarter instead of a verdict she might not collect until 2028 after appeal. No risk of the 35% defense verdict. Confidentiality, which she has said matters for her current employer. And she skips a May 14 deposition and a two-week trial she has told her counsel she dreads. Ask of the mediator. Anchor the first session at $725,000 and do not carry a demand above $1.5M back to us; it will cost the day. We will show real movement in session two if plaintiff arrives with authority under $1M. Carry across the hall. "Acme is at $725,000 because that is what trial costs them before a single dollar of verdict; this is the one number where both sides come out ahead." --- Assumptions I made. Your 35/40/25 split is carried forward untested [verify - moving ten points out of the defense-verdict row and into the full-verdict row, a 25/40/35 split, takes the risk-adjusted figure to $1.22M and makes $725K look low]. FEHA one-way fee-shifting applies to all counts [safe]. Plaintiff's fee claim of ~$410,000 is estimated from a 14-month litigation at typical Bay Area plaintiff-side rates [verify]. Where this is weakest. The $725,000 number sits well under the risk-adjusted figure, and an evaluative mediator will say so within five minutes. Second, the "defense verdict 35%" row is the softest line in the document: Judge Corley's bench comment cuts against it, and you cited that comment yourself two paragraphs earlier. What only you can decide. Whether to tell the mediator your actual authority ceiling. Disclosing it converges faster and buys credibility with an evaluative neutral, but Alvarez will spend the afternoon pushing you to it. Holding it back preserves the $725K anchor but risks the session ending at impasse over $150K. Separately: whether to move first in session two or force plaintiff to bid against herself: moving first signals good faith to a neutral who rewards it, waiting protects the bracket. What would make this materially better. (1) The MSJ ruling, if it lands before mediation: it resets every probability in the table. (2) Written client authority with a stated ceiling, so the ask to the mediator is honest. (3) Three comparator FEHA retaliation verdicts from N.D. Cal. juries in the last five years, which would let you argue the $2.4M worst case is overstated.
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **Mediator-eyes-only is a license for candor, not for spin.** The value of the document is that you can say what you cannot say across the table. Spend it on the honest weakness, not on louder advocacy. 2. **Theme in three sentences.** The same three sentences that would open trial. If it needs a fourth, it is not a theme yet. 3. **Exposure with numbers and probabilities.** Best, mid, worst, each a dollar figure with a percentage. Then show the risk-adjusted arithmetic. 4. **Add the cost of not settling.** Remaining fees to verdict, fee-shifting exposure, executive time, precedent risk, publicity. 5. **The number is a conclusion, not a demand.** It has to fall out of the math above it. 6. **Sell the other side's side of the trade.** Certainty, confidentiality, timing, and the specific calendared event they get to skip. 7. **Make one concrete ask of the mediator.** Anchor at our number in session one; hold their opening; press them on a specific fact. "Help us settle" is not an ask. 8. **One carry-across sentence.** Under 30 words, in quotation marks, repeatable by someone who is not a lawyer.