Generative AI for Legal Minds: A Practical Guide to Better Prompts
Dip your toes into the AI tool pool with some cautious experimentation.
Generative AI is no longer a futuristic concept; it's a tool that's rapidly integrating into the legal and intellectual property landscape. From summarizing depositions to drafting initial contract clauses, its potential is vast. However, like any powerful tool, its effectiveness depends entirely on the skill of its operator.
Simply asking a question isn't enough. Remember, AI lies, but to get close-to-reliable, nuanced, and useful results, you need to master the art of prompting. Think of it less like using a search engine and more like briefing a smart but very literal-minded junior associate.
Remember, AI tools are still new to everyone, this is a time for cautious experimentation, and no lawyers are truly falling behind—yet. Disclaimer: the AI-based analysis ideas are solely for experimental use in exploring legal and IP analysis.
Here are five core concepts to hopefully improve your AI interactions from frustrating to fruitful.
1. Break It Down: Go Piece by Piece
Don't ask the AI to perform a complex legal task in a single command. You wouldn't ask an associate to "handle the entire merger" in one email, and you shouldn't ask an AI to "draft a complete patent application" in one prompt. Large, vague requests lead to generic, incomplete, or rambling outputs.
Instead, break down the task into smaller, manageable pieces.
Instead of: "Draft a motion for summary judgment."
Try this sequence:
"Outline the key sections of a motion for summary judgment in the Southern District of New York."
"Draft the 'Statement of Undisputed Facts' section based on the following deposition excerpts: [paste excerpts]."
"Write the legal argument for the first cause of action, focusing on the precedent set in Case X v. Case Y."
This piecemeal approach gives you more control and results in a higher-quality, more coherent final work product. Smaller bites also make your requisite final review and editing easier to swallow.
2. Elicit Balance: Ask for Pros and Cons
Large Language Models (LLMs) can be susceptible to confirmation bias, often tailoring their answers to the framing of your question. If you ask it to argue for a position, it will—without any concern for alternative ideas. This is useful for advocacy but dangerous for analysis.
To get a more objective viewpoint, prompt the AI to analyze both sides of an issue. This forces a more balanced output and helps you spot weaknesses in your own arguments.
Biased Prompt: "Explain why this non-compete clause is enforceable."
Balanced Prompt: "Analyze the pros and cons of this non-compete clause's enforceability under California law. Consider case law regarding scope and duration. Act as counsel for each side and identify the three strongest arguments for or against enforcement."
You are the final arbiter. Let the AI lay out the arguments so you can make the informed strategic decision.
More generally, if looking for something from text or analysis, prompt the LLM in a way to identify (and rank or score) the highest probability of occurrence.
3. Context is King: Garbage In, Garbage Out
The quality of an AI's output is directly proportional to the quality of your input. To get a specific, relevant response, you should provide context, examples, and constraints.
Frame your request by telling the AI its purpose, audience, and desired tone. The most powerful technique is providing an exemplar—a "good" example of what you're looking for.
Weak Prompt: "Write about trademark dilution."
Strong Prompt: "I'm preparing a client alert for fashion brand owners who are not lawyers. Write a 400-word explanation of trademark dilution by blurring and tarnishment under the Lanham Act. The tone should be informative but accessible, avoiding legal jargon. Here is a paragraph from a previous alert that reflects the style I want: '[insert example paragraph].'"
Rather than starting from scratch with each input, building a “prompt library” for quickly copying and pasting will go a long way with tasks that one might perform frequently.
4. Leverage Personas: Tell the AI Who to Be
One of the most effective prompting techniques is assigning the AI a persona. Instructing the model to "act as" of “take the role of” a specific character or professional dramatically alters the style, perspective, and depth of its response.
This is invaluable for legal professionals who need to see a problem from multiple viewpoints.
Examiner Persona: "Act as a USPTO patent examiner. Review the following claim set and provide a preliminary analysis identifying potential issues under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112."
Skeptical Judge Persona: "You are a skeptical federal judge hearing a copyright infringement case. Read the plaintiff's argument below and write a summary of your primary concerns and questions for their counsel."
Using personas helps you anticipate arguments, pressure-test your strategy, and generate more tailored content.
In practice, asking the LLM to be an expert in a domain is usually better than telling it to take a lesser experienced role as a, e.g., junior associate or new researcher.
Pairing a role definition with an audience description—such as “explain it like I’m 12 years old…” or “your audience is generally savvy with the law but new to this area of technology”—can help improve output clarity for a specific purpose.
5. Be Specific and Fact-Check Everything
Generative AI can "hallucinate"—that is, invent facts, cases, and citations with complete confidence. This makes it an unreliable tool for pure legal research. Always treat its output as a starting point, not a final answer.
The more specific your request, the lower the chance of error, but the responsibility for accuracy remains with you. You are the supervising attorney; the AI is the lowly intern.
Don’t be the next “ChatGPT Lawyer” or judge submitting fake citations or cases. Be hypervigilant and question everything.
Always independently verify every factual claim, statute, and case citation using a trusted legal research database like Westlaw, LexisNexis, or official sources.
Remember, LLMs are best used for brainstorming, drafting, and summarizing—not for establishing the undisputed truth.
Of course, always avoid exposing private, privileged, and/or confidential information.
Bonus: Iterate and Use the Right Tool
With these current tools, think of your interaction with an AI as a conversation. Use its first response as a building block and refine it with follow-up prompts:
"That's a good start. Now, rewrite it for a non-legal audience."
"Expand on the second point and add a supporting example."
"Reformat this analysis into a table comparing the two options."
If the LLM veers off track, start a new chat session or switch platforms for a bit.
Finally, understand your tool's limitations. There are dozens of models avaailble right now and keeping up with their releases is not an easy task. Moreover, not all LLMs are best suited for specific tasks. Some “flash” models may be quicker, but also more superficial. Some “deep learning” features can take
Most standard chatbots are not real-time search engines. For cutting-edge legal news or deep research, use AI-powered search tools (like Perplexity or Google's AI Overviews) or, better yet, your firm's dedicated legal research platform. Using the right tool for the job is paramount.
Disclaimer: the ideas are solely for experimental use in exploring legal and patent analysis. Such guides, code, prompts, and/or any results are not intended to replace the critical judgment of a qualified professional. It is your responsibility to thoroughly verify all outputs and information as AI models are prone to errors and hallucination. Do not bill clients for time/work performed by AI and/or software tools. Follow all rules in accordance with your state bar and/or ethics and governing body.
This is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. To the extent there are any opinions in this article, they are the author’s alone and do not represent the beliefs of his firm or clients. The strategies expressed are purely speculation based on publicly available information. The information expressed is subject to change at any time and should be checked for completeness, accuracy and current applicability. For advice, consult a suitably licensed attorney and/or patent professional.