Module 1
Why prompts matter for lawyers: what a prompt is, what the tool is for and what never to paste
People search for ‘prompts for lawyers’ as if there were a secret list of magic words. There is not. A prompt is an instruction, and writing a good one is the same skill as briefing a capable junior colleague who has never met your client: say what you want, give what is needed, say how you will judge it, and never hand over what they should not see. This first module sets the ground rules. It explains in general terms what a text-generation tool does, which means you can see why it writes fluent answers that may be wrong; it sorts legal tasks into those that suit the tool and those that do not; and it sets the confidentiality baseline that comes before any clever wording: what never to paste, and how to strip a problem down to something safe to ask.
Hover over an idea to light up what it connects to, click it for its definition, minimum requirements, an example and the usual trap, press Play to watch the map build step by step, or trace a short case through it.
Simplified teaching map, in general terms. Check the law where you work. On a small screen, scroll the map sideways.
By the end of this module you can
- Explain what a prompt is and why a fluent answer is not a checked answer.
- Sort legal tasks by fit for an AI writing tool.
- Apply the confidentiality baseline: what never to paste.
- Anonymise a problem so that it can be asked safely.
- Choose a tool the way a careful lawyer would: approved, understood and agreed with the client.
Part 1. The lecture
What a prompt is, and what the tool does
A prompt is the text you give to an AI writing tool to tell it what to produce. The tool takes your words and writes text that is likely to follow them, based on patterns learned from a very large amount of writing. It does not look up the law in a verified database unless it has been connected to one, and it does not know your client, your file or your court. When it writes ‘the court held that…’, it is producing a sentence that sounds like one that belongs there.
Three consequences follow, and they are the reason this whole course exists.
- Fluent is not the same as right. A smooth, confident paragraph can contain a case that does not exist, a rule from the wrong country or a number that does not add up.
- The tool follows what you say, not what you meant. If your instruction is vague, it will fill the gap with the most likely thing, which may be the wrong thing for your matter.
- The tool has no duties. You do. The duties to a client, to a court and to your regulator stay with you, whatever helped to write the text.
A working definition for this course
Prompt engineering for lawyers is the habit of giving an AI writing tool a clear, safe and checkable instruction, and then checking what comes back before it goes anywhere. The first half is craft. The second half is professional responsibility, and it is the larger half.
A prompt is a brief to a very literal junior
Imagine handing a task to a new trainee who is quick, well read and eager to please, but who has never been in your office, does not know the client, cannot phone anyone to ask a question and will never say ‘I am not sure’ unless you tell them it is allowed. What would you put in the note? The answer to that question is most of this course.
| With a human trainee | With an AI tool |
|---|---|
| They ask you what you meant | They usually do not ask unless you tell them to; they guess and carry on |
| They know your firm’s style and the client’s history | They know nothing about either unless you supply it |
| They tell you when they are out of their depth | They may produce a confident answer anyway |
| They are bound by confidentiality and professional rules | The tool’s provider is bound by its terms, which you must read and which may allow it to keep or use what you type |
| You can supervise their work in the usual way | You must supervise the output deliberately, because it looks finished when it is not |
Notice that the analogy has a limit. A trainee is a person, in your professional system, with training and duties of their own. A tool is neither. The comparison helps you write the brief. It does not tell you how much to trust the result.
Which legal tasks suit the tool
A useful test: can I check the result quickly against something I already have? If you supply a document and ask for a summary, you can check the summary against the document. If you ask a general question about the law and have no way of checking, you are asking the tool to be the authority, and it cannot be one.
| Usually a good fit | Use with real care | Usually a poor fit |
|---|---|---|
| Summarising a document you supply | Explaining an area of law you will then verify | Being the source of a rule, a case or a citation |
| Turning notes into a first-draft email or letter | Drafting a clause for you to review line by line | Deciding what advice to give |
| Rewriting legalese in plain words | Comparing two versions of a document | Anything involving privileged material in a tool your firm has not approved |
| Making a checklist or a list of questions to ask | Suggesting counter-arguments to test your own | Predicting what a court will do |
| Restructuring your own text into headings or a table | Translating a document that someone fluent will check | Being the only check on a deadline, a limitation period or a fee |
The pattern: the tool is best at working on text you already have and can verify, and worst at supplying facts or authority you cannot verify. Almost every good prompt in this course puts the source in front of the tool and asks it to work on that source.
The confidentiality baseline: what never to paste
Before wording, there is a question of what you are allowed to send at all. The details differ by country, firm and client, so this section gives principles and tells you where to look for the rules that bind you: your regulator’s code, your firm’s policy, your engagement letter and the terms of the tool.
| Material | Why it is risky | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Anything marked privileged, confidential or without prejudice | Disclosure may waive protection or breach a duty | Do not paste it unless your firm has approved that tool for it and the client has agreed |
| Names, addresses, contact details and identifiers of clients, counterparties and witnesses | They identify people and breach privacy law and confidentiality | Replace with roles and labels: ‘the tenant’, ‘Client A’ |
| Account numbers, ID numbers, case numbers and file references | They let a reader find the real person or matter | Remove them completely |
| Health, criminal, immigration or children’s information | Special categories attract extra duties in many laws | Do not paste; if the point is legal, describe it in general terms |
| Exact sums, dates and unusual facts that identify a matter | A distinctive story identifies the client even without a name | Round, generalise or change the detail that does not matter to the question |
| Documents you do not have the right to share (a third party’s contract, someone else’s data) | You may be in breach of a confidentiality term | Do not paste without permission |
Four questions before you paste anything
Who is the provider, and have we approved this tool for this kind of material? A free consumer tool is rarely the same as a business service with a contract.
What happens to what I type? Is it stored, who can read it, is it used to improve the tool? Read the terms; do not assume.
Has the client agreed? Your engagement terms, or a conversation you have noted, may need to cover it.
Do I need the facts at all? Often you can ask the general question without any client facts. That is the safest prompt of all.
Anonymising is the habit of removing or replacing everything that points to a real person or matter, and keeping only what the question needs. But take care: removing names is not always enough. ‘The only pharmacist in a village of 300 who was sued in March for a dispensing error’ may identify the person to anyone who lives there. Ask whether a reader who knows the people could work out who it is.
Use the Prompt Safety Scanner below on the invented example, then on a text of your own invention. Notice what it finds and, as important, what it cannot find: it matches patterns. It cannot recognise a story that identifies someone, and it cannot know what your client has agreed.
Part 2. Lab: Paste, Strip or Stop
Decide what to do with each item before it goes into an AI tool. Assume the tool is one your firm has approved for ordinary work, and think about what else is needed.
Situation 1 of 8
The text of a published statute, to be explained in plain words
Where does this belong?
Part 3. Lab: Is the Prompt Safe to Send?
Read each situation and choose the best response.
Situation 1 of 3
A colleague pastes a full client contract into a free public chatbot ‘just to get a summary’ because it is quicker than reading it.
What is the best response?
Part 4. Lab: Prompt Safety Scanner
Try the scanner on the invented example, then on text you invent yourself. Read what it finds and what it cannot.
Tool · Prompt Safety Scanner
The scanner looks for patterns such as emails, numbers, titled names, sums and confidentiality markings. It cannot recognise a description that identifies someone, or know what your client has agreed. A clean result is not permission to send. Only paste invented text here, to practise.
Part 5. Check your understanding
Ten questions drawn from a larger pool. Sign in to have your score saved towards your certificate.
You have finished the free module
Here is what you can do now, and where the course goes next
Module 1 gave you
- Explain what a prompt is and why a fluent answer is not a checked answer.
- Sort legal tasks by fit for an AI writing tool.
- Apply the confidentiality baseline: what never to paste.
- Anonymise a problem so that it can be asked safely.
- Choose a tool the way a careful lawyer would: approved, understood and agreed with the client.
Next, 6 more modules and a capstone
- Module 2: The anatomy of a prompt: role, task, context, reasoning, conditions for closure and outputYou will learn to name the six parts of a prompt and the question each one answers.
- Module 3: Context, sources and constraints: giving the tool what it needs and nothing it should not haveYou will learn to give the context a legal task needs: jurisdiction, stage, labels and audience.
- Module 4: Prompts for everyday legal tasks: summarising, extracting, comparing, drafting, questioning and testingYou will learn to use eight patterns for everyday legal tasks.
- Module 5: Checking the output: invented authorities, wrong jurisdictions, flattering answers and a verification routineYou will learn to name the common failures: invented authorities, wrong jurisdiction, misquotation, wrong numbers.
- Module 6: Iterating, testing and building a prompt library: from one good answer to a method you can trust
- Module 7: Professional duties and good practice: when not to use AI, telling clients and courts, documenting use and a firm policy
- Capstone: Capstone: a prompt pack for a supplier dispute
Each module has its own practice labs and a graded quiz, and a Certificate of Completion follows when you pass them all. The whole course is $15 once, or included in an All-Access Membership.
Two Ways In
Introductory PricePrompt Engineering for Lawyers: buy it on its own, or get it with All-Access
Unlock all of Prompt Engineering for Lawyers on its own with a one-time purchase, or get it as part of an All-Access Membership, which also covers every course and the other paid tools. A member never needs to buy it separately.
This is an early, introductory price for a brand-new product — it’s expected to rise as we add more content. Buy now and it’s yours at today’s rate, forever.
No account needed: you pay, and we email you a one-click sign-in.
All-Access is $19.99 a month or $149 a year, and covers every course and most tools, this one included. Create a free account to subscribe.
Look first, then buy. Free previews on every product page. Secure payment by Stripe. Pay once, keep it forever. Details
See what is included in All-Access →Not ready to buy? Create a free account to save your quiz scores and your place in this course, and to get the printable reports from the practice rooms.
General education on writing and checking prompts for legal work, using invented people, firms, cases and situations. It is not legal advice, it does not recommend any product and it does not state the rules of any country, regulator or court. Check the current rules and guidance that apply to you and your clients.
Teaching? Share this with your class
Free to use in class. The free parts open for everyone, no account needed.