AI prompts for full case record review
A full case record is not one document. Inventory the sources, preserve separate citation systems, and ask questions in passes so the model does not collapse allegations, testimony, correspondence, and later summaries into a single narrative.
General workflow orientation, not legal advice or a jurisdiction-specific procedure. AI can still omit, distort, or invent material.
A verification-first process
Create a source inventory
Assign a short, unique label to each document or production segment and record its date, author or custodian, document type, and page or Bates system.
Question the record in passes
Begin with source identification, then extract facts, then compare conflicts, and only then draft a synthesis. This keeps unsupported connections easier to spot.
Preserve disagreement
Ask for competing accounts side by side with separate citations. Do not direct the model to resolve credibility or treat a later document as automatically controlling.
Audit the synthesis
Trace every material sentence back to its source, confirm that omissions are real, and have counsel review any legal characterization or use in a filing.
Use source-specific citations
- Prefix each citation with a stable source label, then use that source’s native page, Bates, paragraph, or timestamp coordinate.
- For an event drawn from multiple documents, cite each source separately rather than creating a blended citation.
- Identify whether a statement is an allegation, testimony, business record entry, expert opinion, or later summary.
- Use “not found in the record” for an unsuccessful search; do not treat it as proof that the fact does not exist.
Human verification checklist
- Every source label resolves to one document or defined production segment.
- The output keeps firsthand statements, allegations, and later summaries distinct.
- Conflicting accounts remain visible with a citation for each side.
- Every material conclusion has been checked against the complete source set and controlling law.
Prompts for this record
Prompt libraryRecord Interrogation Session Setup
The standing-rules prompt: paste this once at the start of a chat session and every answer after it comes cited, sourced, and honest about gaps.
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.
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.
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.
Demand Letter Facts Section
Draft the facts and damages narrative of a demand from the record itself — every sentence cite-backed, gaps flagged instead of papered over.
Communications Timeline Builder
Turn an email and letter production into a dated who-knew-what-when timeline with thread lineage and Bates cites — knowledge milestones flagged.
Incident Report vs. Testimony Audit
Compare what the incident or police report recorded at the time against what the same actors said later under oath — every divergence classified and dual-cited.
Run these prompts on your own full case records.
Ask your files opens the record in this browser and searches it with source cites. CasePrompts Pro (private beta) runs the full prompt on the whole file in the cloud, and accepts case files only after a Zero Data Retention agreement is in place.
Continue across the record
Before using a third-party model, review how data leaves the browser. For the prompt framework and its limits, read the CITE guide and editorial methodology.