ChatGPT Prompts for Legal
Legal professionals are among the most cautious adopters of AI — and for good reason. The stakes are high, accuracy is non-negotiable, and hallucinated case citations can damage careers. Yet AI excels at the most time-consuming parts of legal work: first-draft contract review, research synthesis, document comparison, and routine correspondence. The key is writing prompts that treat the AI as a research assistant whose output you always verify, not as a source of legal authority.
For contract review, include the agreement type, the specific clauses to scrutinize, the governing jurisdiction, and what you need flagged — missing provisions, unusual terms, or deviations from your standard template. Legal research prompts should specify the jurisdiction, the legal question, the relevant area of law, and whether you want case law, statutory analysis, or regulatory guidance — and always note that citations must be verified.
Law firms and legal departments that build prompt libraries standardize their AI-assisted workflows and reduce the risk of inconsistent outputs. PromptingBox lets you save, version, and organize your legal prompts so your team works from vetted templates that encode your firm's standards.
Legal Prompt Templates
AI-assisted legal work — always verify output with qualified counsel.
Contract Clause Review
Review this {{contract_type}} agreement clause by clause: """ {{paste_contract_text}} """ **Jurisdiction:** {{jurisdiction}} **My client's position:** {{position}} (e.g., "buyer", "licensee", "employer") **Risk tolerance:** {{risk_level}} (conservative / moderate / aggressive) For each clause, provide: 1. **Summary** — one sentence, what it means in plain English 2. **Risk assessment** — Low / Medium / High for my client 3. **Missing protections** — what should be here but isn't 4. **Suggested modifications** — specific language changes to improve my client's position Flag any clauses that are: - Non-standard for this type of agreement - Heavily one-sided against my client - Missing entirely (e.g., no limitation of liability, no termination for convenience) IMPORTANT: This is for drafting assistance only. All output must be reviewed by qualified legal counsel before use.
Why it works: Specifying client position and risk tolerance gives the AI a framework for evaluation rather than generic observations. The 'missing entirely' instruction catches omissions that clause-by-clause review misses.
Legal Research Memo
Draft a legal research memo on: **Legal question:** {{legal_question}} **Jurisdiction:** {{jurisdiction}} **Area of law:** {{area}} (e.g., contract law, employment law, IP, data privacy) **Context:** {{brief_context}} Structure: 1. **Issue** — restate the question precisely 2. **Short answer** — 2-3 sentence conclusion 3. **Analysis** — discuss relevant legal principles, how they apply to this situation 4. **Key considerations** — factors that could change the analysis 5. **Recommended next steps** IMPORTANT: Do not cite specific case names or statute numbers — I will verify all legal authorities independently. Instead, describe the legal principles and the type of authority that supports each point (e.g., "under general contract principles" rather than citing a specific case).
Why it works: Explicitly banning case citations prevents hallucinated references. The 'describe principles, not cases' instruction still gives useful legal analysis without the risk of fabricated authorities.
Document Comparison
Compare these two versions of a {{document_type}}: **Version A (our standard):** """ {{version_a}} """ **Version B (counterparty's redline):** """ {{version_b}} """ Produce a comparison table: | Section | Our Version | Their Change | Impact | Recommendation | |---------|-------------|--------------|--------|---------------| For Impact, use: Favorable / Neutral / Unfavorable / Critical For Recommendation, use: Accept / Negotiate / Reject Summarize the 3 most consequential changes at the top.
Why it works: The table format makes differences immediately actionable. Ranking by consequence ensures the negotiator focuses on what matters most, not just what changed the most.
Client Communication Drafter
Draft a {{communication_type}} to the client: **Client:** {{client_description}} (e.g., "CEO of a mid-size SaaS company, not legally trained") **Subject:** {{subject}} **Key points to communicate:** 1. {{point_1}} 2. {{point_2}} 3. {{point_3}} **Tone:** Professional but accessible — avoid legalese unless the client is legally sophisticated **Action needed from client:** {{action_needed}} **Deadline (if any):** {{deadline}} Requirements: - Lead with the action item / decision needed - Explain legal implications in plain language - Keep under 300 words - End with clear next steps
Why it works: Leading with the action item respects the client's time. The 'avoid legalese' instruction produces emails clients actually read. Specifying the client's sophistication level calibrates the language.
Compliance Checklist
Create a compliance checklist for {{regulation}} as it applies to: **Organization type:** {{org_type}} (e.g., "B2B SaaS company", "healthcare provider", "financial services firm") **Business process under review:** {{process}} **Current state:** {{current_state}} (brief description of what's in place) Generate a checklist with: - [ ] Requirement (plain language description) - **Regulation reference:** (article/section number) - **Current status:** Compliant / Partial / Non-compliant / Unknown - **Gap:** what's missing - **Priority:** High / Medium / Low - **Remediation:** specific action to close the gap Group by category (e.g., Data Collection, Storage, Access Control, Breach Response, Training). Note: This checklist is for planning purposes. Compliance determinations require qualified legal review.
Why it works: Grouping by category makes the checklist actionable by different teams. The gap + remediation format turns a compliance review into a project plan.
NDA/Contract Clause Drafter
Draft a {{clause_type}} clause for a {{contract_type}} agreement. **Jurisdiction:** {{jurisdiction}} **Parties:** {{party_a}} (my client) and {{party_b}} **Key terms to include:** - {{term_1}} - {{term_2}} - {{term_3}} **Special considerations:** {{considerations}} (e.g., "must survive termination", "mutual obligations", "carve-outs for pre-existing IP") Provide: 1. The clause text (in formal legal drafting style) 2. A plain-English explanation of what it means 3. One alternative version that is more protective for my client 4. Common pitfalls to watch for in this type of clause Note: All drafted language must be reviewed and customized by qualified legal counsel before inclusion in any agreement.
Why it works: Providing two versions (standard + protective) gives the attorney options for negotiation. The pitfalls section highlights issues that even experienced lawyers sometimes miss in routine drafting.
Recommended tools & resources
Browse legal prompt templates shared by the community.
Prompt BuilderBuild custom legal prompts with guided steps.
Business Prompt TemplatesBroader business templates for contracts and operations.
Prompt TipsTechniques to get more precise legal outputs from AI.
Industry PromptsSector-specific prompt collections for legal verticals.
Prompt PatternsReusable structures for reviews, research, and drafting.