Plain-English Client Summary
A client-friendly status summary of the record at an eighth-grade reading level — jargon translated, honest about what's unresolved, nothing overpromised.
What is an AI plain-English client summary prompt?
It is a CITE prompt that asks an AI tool to summarize case records. A client-friendly status summary of the record at an eighth-grade reading level — jargon translated, honest about what's unresolved, nothing overpromised. You fill in four fields; the Evidence block requires a page:line, Bates, page, or timestamp cite for every finding so a person can check each one against the record.
Sample prompt
Synthetic data
Synthetic example: The names, dates, case details, and issues below are fictional CasePrompts sample values, not client data or evidence from a real matter. They demonstrate the prompt format, not the accuracy of any AI model's output.
Preview the complete sample prompt
CONTEXT: You are a litigation support analyst assisting counsel's paralegal in a motor vehicle negligence matter. The attached materials are the case record. You are preparing a status summary for the client. The issues that matter are: fault for the collision; medical treatment; time off work. INSTRUCTIONS: Summarize where the case stands in plain English at an eighth-grade reading level: 1. Explain what has happened so far and what the documents show, in ordinary words. 2. Translate every legal or procedural term you must use ("deposition" → "a formal interview under oath"). 3. State plainly what is still unresolved or unknown — do not paper over uncertainty. 4. Describe what happens next procedurally, without predicting outcomes. Keep a respectful, calm tone. No legal advice, no opinions on the merits, no settlement talk — those belong to the attorney. TEMPLATE — format your output exactly as follows: ## Where things stand [short paragraphs, plain language] ## What the documents show [bullet points, one fact each, plain language] ## What we don't know yet [bullet points] ## What happens next [short paragraphs — process only, no predictions] ## Words you'll hear | Term | What it means here | |---|---| EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS: For every finding, identify the source document by name and cite page:line for transcripts, timestamps for audio/video, and Bates/page for documents. Keep the citations in the working draft so the attorney can verify every statement; they can be stripped from the client copy. Never speculate, predict outcomes, or soften a fact the record states plainly. If something a client would ask about is not in the record, say "the file doesn't answer that yet." Unless a section above specifies its own marker, write "not found in the record" wherever the provided record does not support a requested finding. Do not infer or fill gaps from outside knowledge. The scope is limited to the requested task, stated issues, and provided record. Do not introduce outside subjects or sources. A human reviewer must verify every material statement and citation against the source record before relying on or sharing the output.
Through the Civil / insurance defense lens
Organize around exposure: what currently supports each element of the claim, what undercuts it, and what remains unproven on this record — in a neutral, evaluative register suitable for carrier reporting.
Through the Commercial litigation lens
Organize by claim element and contract provision: what the documents establish, what remains genuinely disputed, and what the damages record actually quantifies.
Through the Criminal defense lens
Organize by element of each charged offense, noting which elements rest on a single witness, where corroboration is absent, and where the record is silent.
Through the Employment litigation lens
Organize around the decision at issue: the stated reasons, the documentation that predates versus postdates the decision, comparator evidence, and policy compliance.
Through the Family law lens
Organize around the governing factors as the record speaks to them, in a measured register — the likely audience is a judge or guardian ad litem, not a jury.
Through the Medical malpractice — defense lens
Organize around the defense posture: what the chart documents the provider knew and did, where the plaintiff's account departs from the record, and what remains unproven on causation.
Through the Medical malpractice — plaintiff lens
Organize around the elements: duty, the standard of care as the record states it, deviation evidence, causation, and damages — flagging where expert foundation exists and where it is still missing.
Through the Personal injury — plaintiff lens
Surface testimony supporting each liability element and each category of damages, and flag favorable concessions prominently rather than burying them in sequence.
Through the Probate & estate litigation lens
Organize around the element the matter turns on — testamentary capacity, undue influence, or breach of fiduciary duty — in a measured register written for a probate judge, not a jury.
Through the Prosecution lens
Organize by charge and element, rating the strength of proof per element as resting on multiple independent sources, a single source, or inference.
Through the Workers' compensation — claimant lens
Organize around what the benefits turn on: compensability evidence, current work status and restrictions, treatment authorized versus requested, and average weekly wage support.
Through the Workers' compensation — employer/carrier lens
Organize around exposure: what supports compensability, what undercuts it, the authorized-care record, and the return-to-work evidence — in a register suitable for carrier reporting.
AI output is a starting point, not work product. Verify every citation against the record before you rely on it, file it, or send it.
What you'll fill in
- 01Your role
- 02Case typee.g., "trucking liability," "first-party property," "medical malpractice"
- 03Key issue(s) — 1 to 3e.g., "vehicle speed at impact; brake maintenance; visibility"
- 04Recipient / audience(optional)e.g., "claims adjuster," "client," "mediator"
Verification checklist
- Mixed / full case record: open each cited page:line, Bates, page, or timestamp location and confirm it supports the finding. The prompt asks: “For every finding, identify the source document by name and cite page:line for transcripts, timestamps for audio/video, and Bates/page for documents.”
- Re-check every item labelled “the file doesn't answer that yet” or “not found in the record” against the full source; these labels flag gaps or judgment calls for a person to resolve, not proof of absence.
- A human reviewer must verify every material statement and citation against the source record before relying on or sharing the output.
Pro tip Read it aloud once — if a sentence doesn't survive being spoken, it isn't plain English yet.
Related verification workflow
Related templates
IME / CME Report Summarizer
Distill an IME or CME report: findings, concessions, the records the examiner says they reviewed — and the gap between that list and what actually exists.
Mediation Position Summary
A neutral-tone summary of the record organized for a mediation statement: liability, damages, what's genuinely disputed, and what both sides already agree on.
AI Page-Line Deposition Summary Prompt
Turn a complete deposition transcript into a topic-based page-line summary with precise cites, verbatim excerpts, admissions, exhibits, and unanswered questions.