Build a clear legal letter

Before anything is uploaded

Check every document, and every summary or note made from one, against four questions: Was it obtained through a court process (discovery, subpoena, notice to produce, inspection)? Is it legally privileged or a settlement communication? Is it under a suppression or non-publication order? Does it contain other people's personal information? A yes to any of them means it does not go in without advice. Privacy settings, redaction or a public source do not by themselves give permission. In the NSW Supreme Court, SC Gen 23 paragraphs 9A and 9B set conditions on AI use of restricted material; this site's rule, that compelled material never goes into an AI tool, is stricter than that and is our policy. No tool may generate, alter or rephrase affidavit or witness evidence. Where permission is unresolved, do the task by hand.

Use this when

The letter matters enough to deserve a source check and a second pair of artificial eyes.

Leave with

A concise draft in which each factual statement can be traced and each requested action is clear.

Verify with

A civil litigation solicitor with confidentiality and AI practice experience.

The central rule

No fact enters the letter unless you can point back to its source. No sentence stays merely because it sounds forceful.

The three-workspace system

WORKSPACE 01

The fact room

Receives every relevant email and attachment, extracts the factual record once, and produces a reusable Markdown facts pack.

WORKSPACE 02

The drafter

Receives the facts pack, the incoming letter and your objective. It drafts in numbered paragraphs with source discipline.

WORKSPACE 03

The independent reviewer

Checks every claim and identifies where the draft is unsupported, emotional, vague or unnecessary.

Keep the jobs separate. A fresh review is more likely to notice the sentence the drafting chat has read seventeen times and now considers part of the furniture.

Workspace 1: build the facts pack once

Before asking for prose, assemble the record. Include the emails themselves—not merely the attachments. Preserve every received original outside the AI workspace.

Two ways to do it

MANUAL ROUTE

Dedicated facts chat

Upload the files in manageable batches. Require an acknowledgement for each filename, then request the final Markdown facts pack only after the set is complete.

FOLDER ROUTE

Claude with folder access

Place working copies in one dedicated folder, grant access only to that folder, and ask Claude to inspect every file and save the resulting facts pack beside them.

Do not rely on “memory” alone

The downloadable Markdown file is the durable product. AI memory and chat context can be incomplete, unavailable or changed. Keep the facts pack with the source documents and regenerate it when the source set changes.

Prompt 01

Build the verified facts pack

Use in a dedicated chat or in a tool with access to the matter folder.

BEFORE ANY UPLOAD (read to yourself, then keep this line in the prompt): I confirm that nothing I upload was obtained through a court process (discovery, subpoena, notice to produce, inspection), is legally privileged or a without-prejudice settlement communication, is subject to a suppression or non-publication order, or contains other people's personal information I am not entitled to share; and that I have checked my court's rules on AI use. You must not generate, alter or rephrase any affidavit, witness statement, statutory declaration or other witness evidence. Mark every legal classification UNVERIFIED.

You are the records analyst for one legal matter. Inspect every file I provide or every file within the folder I have expressly authorised. Your job is to create a reusable factual record—not to give legal advice, draft correspondence or decide who is right.

FIRST, INVENTORY THE SOURCE SET
- List every folder and file inspected using the exact path or filename.
- Identify unreadable, corrupt, password-protected, duplicate or apparently incomplete files.
- Identify emails that refer to missing attachments.
- Do not claim the set is complete until you have reconciled the inventory.

THEN EXTRACT THE RECORD
For every material event, record:
- event date and time;
- document date and date received, if different;
- people or organisations involved;
- neutral factual description;
- exact source filename;
- page, paragraph, email timestamp or recording timestamp;
- status: recorded fact, allegation, opinion, disputed or unclear.

Create separate sections for:
1. Parties and roles
2. Neutral chronology
3. Correspondence and requests
4. Allegations made by each side
5. Evidence actually supplied for each allegation
6. Agreements, admissions and concessions
7. Deadlines and their stated source
8. Court orders, legislation, rules and cases mentioned — all marked UNVERIFIED
9. Conflicts between sources
10. Missing documents and unanswered questions

SOURCE DISCIPLINE
- Use only the supplied files.
- Never convert an allegation into a fact.
- Never invent a date, quotation, event or document.
- Quote only where the exact words matter.
- If the same event appears differently in two sources, preserve both versions.
- Label every inference and explain its basis.
- Put a source reference beside every material fact.

OUTPUT
Create a Markdown file named MATTER_FACTS_PACK.md for download or save it in the authorised working folder. Begin with a source-set inventory and the date the pack was generated. End with “Verification required” and “Files not successfully reviewed”.

Do not draft a letter. Do not recommend a legal position. Do not say the record is complete merely because processing has stopped.

Check the facts pack before moving on

Every expected file appears in the inventory.
Every material fact has a filename and page, paragraph or timestamp.
Allegations remain labelled as allegations.
Conflicts and gaps are visible rather than silently “resolved”.
Deadlines and authorities are marked for direct verification.
The Markdown file is saved outside the chat.

Workspace 2: draft from the record

Start a clean conversation. Supply the facts pack, the letter being answered, any verified authorities you intend to rely on and a short instruction explaining the context, recipient and exact outcome you want.

Prompt 02

Draft from the verified record

This is correspondence, not affidavit evidence. Keep the job defined.

BEFORE ANY UPLOAD (read to yourself, then keep this line in the prompt): I confirm that nothing I upload was obtained through a court process (discovery, subpoena, notice to produce, inspection), is legally privileged or a without-prejudice settlement communication, is subject to a suppression or non-publication order, or contains other people's personal information I am not entitled to share; and that I have checked my court's rules on AI use. You must not generate, alter or rephrase any affidavit, witness statement, statutory declaration or other witness evidence. Mark every legal classification UNVERIFIED.

Act as a rigorous legal editor assisting me to prepare correspondence. You are not my lawyer and must not invent law, evidence or strategy. Work only from the attached source material.

CONTEXT
[Explain the matter, jurisdiction, procedural stage and who the recipient is.]

THE LETTER I AM ANSWERING
[Identify the exact filename and date.]

MY OBJECTIVE
[State the practical outcome sought in one or two sentences.]

MY NON-NEGOTIABLES
[State any position, boundary, deadline or proposal that must be preserved.]

DRAFTING TASK
Draft a response in numbered paragraphs. Make it calm, concise and capable of being read later by an independent decision-maker.

For every paragraph:
- tie each factual statement to the supplied facts pack;
- preserve the distinction between fact, allegation, inference and position;
- respond only to points that materially require a response;
- state requests precisely, including who should do what and by when;
- avoid adjectives, sarcasm, threats, mind-reading and repetition;
- do not make admissions unless I have expressly authorised them;
- do not cite an authority unless the verified source is supplied.

Use this structure where appropriate:
1. Purpose and document being answered
2. Points agreed or accurately recorded
3. Material corrections or disputed allegations
4. Evidence or source references
5. The position or proposal
6. Specific actions requested and reasonable timeframe
7. Neutral close and reservation of rights only if appropriate

After the draft, provide a SOURCE MAP in a separate table:
Paragraph | Material factual proposition | Source filename | Page/paragraph/timestamp | Verification status

Also provide a CUT LIST identifying any sentence that could be deleted without changing the letter’s legal or practical function.

If the record does not support a proposed statement, do not draft around the gap. Mark it [SOURCE REQUIRED].

Ask for a downloadable .docx only after you have reviewed the text. A Word file is a container, not a quality certificate.

Workspace 3: give it an independent review

Give the reviewer the draft, the incoming letter and the facts pack. Do not give it the drafter’s self-explanation. You want a fresh reading, not a reunion tour.

Prompt 03

Review against evidence and purpose

A score is useful only when the rubric is visible.

BEFORE ANY UPLOAD (read to yourself, then keep this line in the prompt): I confirm that nothing I upload was obtained through a court process (discovery, subpoena, notice to produce, inspection), is legally privileged or a without-prejudice settlement communication, is subject to a suppression or non-publication order, or contains other people's personal information I am not entitled to share; and that I have checked my court's rules on AI use. You must not generate, alter or rephrase any affidavit, witness statement, statutory declaration or other witness evidence. Mark every legal classification UNVERIFIED.

Act as an exacting but fair legal editor. Review the attached draft against the incoming correspondence and the verified facts pack. Do not rewrite it yet. Do not reward confident tone.

First identify any CRITICAL FAILURE:
- unsupported factual statement;
- allegation presented as fact;
- invented or unverified authority;
- accidental admission or waiver risk;
- missed material request or deadline;
- unclear action sought;
- statement that is needlessly inflammatory;
- privacy, privilege or confidentiality concern apparent from the supplied material.

Then score each category from 0 to 10 and explain the score with paragraph references:
1. Factual support and source traceability — 25%
2. Responsiveness to the incoming letter — 15%
3. Strategic clarity and defined objective — 15%
4. Restraint, neutrality and credibility — 15%
5. Precision of requests, dates and next steps — 10%
6. Structure and numbered-paragraph flow — 10%
7. Brevity: nothing unnecessary — 10%

Calculate the weighted score. A draft cannot score above 8/10 while any critical failure remains.

Return:
A. Critical failures
B. Score table
C. Paragraph-by-paragraph issues
D. Exact revision instructions for the drafter
E. Sentences to delete
F. Facts or authorities requiring human verification
G. The strongest argument the recipient could make against this letter

Do not praise the draft generally. Make every comment actionable.

The revision loop

Save each draft as a new numbered version. Never overwrite the working history.
Take the reviewer’s report back to the drafting workspace.
Ask the drafter to address each item or explain why it should not be adopted.
Require a change log: reviewer item, action taken, paragraph changed and source checked.
Return the revised draft to the reviewer with no commentary beyond the new version number.
Stop after a meaningful improvement plateau. Endless polishing can make a clear letter longer, stranger and less human.

Prompt 04

Apply the review without losing control

Feedback goes back to the drafter, but not as unquestionable truth.

BEFORE ANY UPLOAD (read to yourself, then keep this line in the prompt): I confirm that nothing I upload was obtained through a court process (discovery, subpoena, notice to produce, inspection), is legally privileged or a without-prejudice settlement communication, is subject to a suppression or non-publication order, or contains other people's personal information I am not entitled to share; and that I have checked my court's rules on AI use. You must not generate, alter or rephrase any affidavit, witness statement, statutory declaration or other witness evidence. Mark every legal classification UNVERIFIED.

Revise the draft using the attached independent review.

For each review item:
- adopt it if it improves factual accuracy, restraint, clarity or purpose;
- reject it if it requires an unsupported fact, unnecessary escalation or a change to my stated objective;
- never fill a source gap with plausible wording;
- preserve numbered paragraphs and update the source map.

Return:
1. Revised letter
2. Updated source map
3. Change log: review item | adopted/rejected | reason | paragraph
4. Remaining [SOURCE REQUIRED] or [HUMAN DECISION REQUIRED] items
5. A fresh cut list

Do not claim the letter is ready to send. Readiness will be decided using a separate final gate.

The ready-to-send gate

Use the rubric to find specific defects, not to chase a flattering number. A model awarding its own prose 10/10 is applause from the person already holding the microphone. A clean source map is more useful.

No critical failure remains.
Every factual proposition traces to a source you personally checked.
Every quotation is exact and necessary.
Every authority exists, is current, is relevant and has been read in context.
The letter has one clear objective.
The recipient can identify every requested action and timeframe.
Allegations, facts, inference and position remain distinct.
No accidental admission, concession, threat or waiver has slipped in.
Every paragraph earns its place; the cut list is empty or consciously rejected.
The subject line, names, dates, attachments and recipient are correct.
The final Word document has been converted to a clean PDF and checked page by page if PDF is the intended format.
A human has read the final version aloud after a break.

The intended finish

Not: “Your outrageous and vexatious conduct has left me no choice but to expose the obvious truth.” Instead: 12. I do not accept the characterisation in paragraph 8 of your letter. The request made on 14 May was for a copy of the inspection protocol, not access to the device. The email recording that request is enclosed. 13. Please provide the protocol referred to in your letter by 4:00 pm on 22 May 2026, or confirm when it will be available. The second version gives the recipient something concrete to answer. It also gives a later reader something concrete to understand.

Important limits

Protect the originals. Give folder-enabled tools access to a dedicated working-copy folder, not an entire drive. Keep backups.
Check permission first, then privacy. The upload check at the top of this page applies to every file you give Workspace 1, and every facts pack derived from those files carries the same restrictions into Workspaces 2 and 3. Then understand each service’s data controls. Two AI reviews cannot tell you whether privilege has been waived or whether a letter is legally ready; that is a human judgment.
Two models can share one mistake. Cross-review improves the chance of catching errors; it does not create two independent lawyers.
Do not use this workflow for affidavit content. NSW rules prohibit generative AI from generating affidavit evidence. See What is an affidavit?
Do not send automatically. AI may prepare files; you remain responsible for deciding, verifying and sending.
Get legal advice when the consequences justify it. Especially before making admissions, rejecting settlement terms, threatening steps, alleging misconduct or responding to an urgent deadline.

General information and workflow education only, not legal advice. AI can omit, distort or invent facts and law. Court rules, confidentiality obligations and appropriate correspondence strategy depend on the matter and jurisdiction. Last reviewed: September 2026.