2. Fundamentals of Legal Prompt Engineering

The Three Golden Rules of Effective Prompting

Before diving into complex frameworks and techniques, you need to understand three foundational principles that separate effective prompts from ineffective ones. These golden rules apply to every prompt you'll ever write, from simple questions to complex multi-step legal analysis.

Rule 1: Clarity

Your prompt should be unambiguous and straightforward. AI models interpret your instructions literally—if there's room for multiple interpretations, you'll get unpredictable results.

Poor Example:

Tell me about summary judgment.

Better Example:

Explain the legal standard for summary judgment in federal court under 
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the burden 
of proof and the standard for viewing evidence.

The second prompt removes ambiguity. Are you asking for a definition? A history? Application to a specific case? The clearer your request, the more useful the response.

Rule 2: Specificity

General prompts produce general responses. Specific prompts produce actionable work product. The more specific you are about what you need, the more the AI can tailor its response to your exact requirements.

Poor Example:

Draft a contract.

Better Example:

Draft a commercial lease agreement for retail space in California, 
including provisions for: (1) 5-year term with two 3-year renewal 
options, (2) triple-net lease structure, (3) percentage rent clause 
tied to gross sales, (4) tenant improvement allowance, and (5) 
standard force majeure provisions.

Specificity transforms AI from a generic tool into a precision instrument.

Rule 3: Context

Context helps the AI understand not just what you're asking, but why you're asking it and how the answer will be used. This shapes the tone, depth, and format of the response.

Poor Example:

Better Example:

The context tells the AI this needs to be jury-appropriate language in a specific jurisdiction, not an academic treatise on tort law.

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Understanding what doesn't work is just as important as knowing what does. Here are the most common mistakes legal professionals make when prompting AI.

Pitfall 1: Vague and Short Statements

Most people prompt AI the way they use search engines—short queries that lack detail.

Example of the Problem:

This prompt seems clear, but it's missing critical information:

  • Member-managed or manager-managed?

  • Which Georgia (state, country, city)?

  • Who are the members/managers?

  • What is the trust company's purpose?

  • Is the trustee role bifurcated (administrative vs. distribution)?

  • Is there an investment committee?

The Solution: Add layers of specificity and context:

Pitfall 2: Lack of Contextual Information

Without context, AI makes assumptions that may not align with your needs.

Example of the Problem:

This prompt fails to mention that the trust company will serve as trustee to specific types of trusts with specific assets.

The Solution: Provide the relevant contextual backdrop:

Pitfall 3: Not Accounting for Hallucination

AI can fabricate information that sounds plausible but is entirely false. In legal work, this is particularly dangerous.

Example of the Problem:

Here's the fundamental issue: Georgia does not have state legislation recognizing private trust companies. The AI will not alert you to this fact and will proceed to generate an operating agreement anyway.

The Solution: Build verification requirements into your prompts:

With these instructions, the AI correctly responds: "I cannot complete this request due to regulatory uncertainty."

Pitfall 4: Lack of Structure

Unstructured prompts produce inconsistent results. Adding structure to your prompts dramatically improves output quality and reliability.

The C.A.S.E. Framework

The C.A.S.E. Framework is your systematic approach to crafting effective legal prompts. Every successful legal prompt contains these four crucial elements:

C - Context

Define the subject matter and provide background on the task, jurisdiction, court (if applicable), and area of law. Context shapes how the AI interprets and responds to your request.

Elements to Include:

  • Subject matter and background

  • Jurisdiction (federal, state, specific court)

  • Area of law

  • Input data references

Example:

A - Audience & Action (Persona)

Assign the AI a specific role or persona. This shapes the tone, expertise level, and approach of the response. Then define the specific action you need performed.

Persona Examples:

  • "Act as a litigation paralegal preparing document summaries..."

  • "Assume the role of opposing counsel evaluating weaknesses in my case..."

  • "You are a senior partner specializing in tort law reviewing an associate's work..."

Action Verbs to Use:

  • Summarize

  • Draft

  • Compare and contrast

  • Generate objections

  • Outline

  • Analyze

  • Extract

  • Identify

Example:

S - Structure & Style

Define exactly how you want the response organized and what tone it should adopt. This ensures the output matches your specific needs and professional standards.

Format Specifications:

  • "Provide the summary as a three-column table"

  • "Format the response as bullet points"

  • "Draft as a formal email"

  • "Use only IRAC structure (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion)"

  • "Present as a two-page executive summary followed by detailed appendices"

Tone Specifications:

  • "Highly persuasive and aggressive"

  • "Neutral and objective"

  • "Plain language suitable for a client with no legal background"

  • "Professional but empathetic"

  • "Academic and scholarly"

Example:

E - Ethical and Verification Directives

Always include instructions that promote accuracy and identify limitations. This is your safeguard against hallucination and unreliable output.

Citation Requirements:

Limitation Acknowledgment:

Example of Complete Ethical Directive:

The "Prompt Sandwich" Structure

The "Prompt Sandwich" is a proven template that incorporates all elements of the C.A.S.E. Framework in a structured, repeatable format:

Example: Complete Prompt Sandwich

Preventing AI Hallucination in Legal Work

Hallucination—when AI fabricates information that sounds plausible but is false—poses the greatest risk to legal professionals. Here are strategies to minimize this risk:

Strategy 1: Explicit Uncertainty Instructions

Strategy 2: Request Source Attribution

Strategy 3: Confidence Levels

Strategy 4: Multiple Verification Steps

Don't rely on a single AI response. Use this multi-step verification approach:

  1. Initial prompt with strong verification requirements

  2. Second prompt asking the AI to identify weaknesses or uncertainties in its first response

  3. Manual verification of all citations and key legal propositions in primary sources

Example Second-Step Prompt:

Putting It All Together: Before and After Examples

Example 1: Contract Review

Poor Prompt:

Improved Prompt Using C.A.S.E.:

Example 2: Legal Research

Poor Prompt:

Improved Prompt Using C.A.S.E.:

Practice Exercise

To reinforce these concepts, take this poorly constructed prompt and rebuild it using the C.A.S.E. Framework:

Poor Prompt:

Your Task: Before looking at the answer below, try rewriting this prompt to include:

  • Clear context about the case and the deposition's significance

  • A specific persona for the AI

  • Detailed structure requirements

  • Ethical verification requirements

Example Improved Version:

Chapter Summary

Mastering legal prompt engineering begins with understanding and applying these fundamental principles:

  1. Follow the Three Golden Rules: Every prompt must be clear, specific, and contextual

  2. Avoid Common Pitfalls: Vague prompts, missing context, and unstructured requests produce poor results

  3. Use the C.A.S.E. Framework: Context, Audience & Action, Structure & Style, and Ethical directives

  4. Apply the Prompt Sandwich Structure: Organize your prompts systematically for consistent results

  5. Prevent Hallucination: Build verification requirements into every prompt

These fundamentals will serve as the foundation for everything that follows. In the next chapter, we'll apply these principles to real-world legal tasks, providing you with ready-to-use prompt templates for discovery, research, drafting, and trial preparation.

In Chapter 3, we'll move from theory to practice with detailed examples of prompts for every stage of litigation—from early case assessment through trial preparation.

Previous1. Introduction - The Power of Precision in PromptingNext3. Practical Prompting Techniques and Real-World Applications

Last updated