CoCounsel prompts for litigation documents
Thomson Reuters describes CoCounsel Legal as supporting research, drafting, and document analysis. These prompts can help frame custom direction where the selected workflow accepts it; product grounding does not remove the need for lawyer review.
Product-source review: . Capabilities and data terms vary by plan and can change. Confirm the current product documentation and your organization’s approval before using case material.
CoCounsel for litigation — product fit and limits
Strengths
- The product is designed for legal research, drafting, and document-analysis workflows.
- Available plans combine CoCounsel skills with Thomson Reuters legal and practical-law content in different configurations.
- A structured legal workflow can provide more task context than an unconfigured general chat.
Watch-outs
- Plans, integrations, and supported custom instructions vary; not every CasePrompts template maps directly to a product skill.
- Subscription and firm rollout requirements make it less accessible than a free general-purpose chat.
- Legal-specific output can still be incomplete or wrong and must be checked against the record and controlling authority.
This is an editorial product comparison, not an endorsement or a security assessment.
Using CasePrompts with CoCounsel
Choose the CoCounsel document-analysis workflow that fits the task and paste the CasePrompts prompt where the workflow accepts custom direction. Where it does not, run the closest built-in workflow and apply the prompt’s Template block to its output in a follow-up. Check every result against the record and controlling authority.
Tool interfaces change — adapt as needed, and check your firm's AI use policy before uploading case materials.
Why structure helps more than “summarize this”
Every prompt follows the CITE method: Context, Instructions, Template, Evidence. It names the source in scope, the task, the output, and how to cite supporting locations. That makes CoCounsel’s answer easier to inspect; it does not stop a model from misreading material, so check every material finding against the source.
Prompts to try in CoCounsel
Prompt libraryContract Obligations Extractor
Inventory every obligation, deadline, notice requirement, and condition precedent in the contract — who owes what, triggered by what, with section cites.
Discovery Gap Finder
Flag every evasive, incomplete, or boilerplate-objection answer against what was actually asked — and walk away with your meet-and-confer list drafted.
Expert Report vs. Deposition Audit
Audit an expert's deposition against their report: new opinions, abandoned opinions, changed bases, and undisclosed reliance materials — the record a motion to exclude depends on.
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.
Requests for Admission Drafter
Draft Requests for Admission aimed at single facts the record already supports — one fact each, grouped by issue, plus authentication RFAs and the facts you still need.
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (MSJ) Builder
Turn the record into a numbered Statement of Undisputed Material Facts for summary judgment — each fact a single sentence tied to a cite, with the genuinely disputed ones pulled out.
CasePrompts is vendor-neutral. Its builder and Ask your files read your files in the browser, so you can search the record and build a cited prompt before deciding whether anything goes to CoCounsel. Data & privacy
Official product sources
These first-party pages supported the capability and data-term statements above when reviewed on .