Claude AI for Lawyers: The B.R.I.E.F. Method and 200+ Prompts for Legal Research, Drafting, and Contract Review — Without Risking Client Confidences, Your License, or a Sanctions Order - Couverture souple

Chu, George

Couverture souple

ISBN 13 : 9798190442700

Editeur : Independently published, 2026

Synopsis

505 decisions. 340 sanctions. None of them was about using AI.

In March 2026 a federal court sanctioned two attorneys fifteen thousand dollars each — plus opposing counsel's fees, plus double costs, plus a disciplinary referral — over a brief citing cases that did not exist.

They had read the brief. Reading it is what they did instead of checking it.

A public tracker of these decisions lists five in 2023 and 203 in the first part of 2026. Most do not name a tool, because for the purposes of the sanction it did not matter. Every one has the same gap in it — not a tool choice, a missing step.

The method

B.R.I.E.F. is five steps, and every one is tied to the Model Rule that requires it.

• BOUND — Decide whether the matter may go near the tool at all. Consent, protective orders, third-party obligations. An unknown is not a yes. (Rules 1.6, 1.4, 5.3)
• REDACT — The name is the least identifying thing in the file. Industry plus geography plus amount plus date will identify a matter no name was needed for. (Rule 1.6)
• INSTRUCT — Never ask it to recall authority; supply the authority and ask it to work. "Cite your sources" specifies a format, not a source. (Rule 1.1)
• EXAMINE — Four tiers on every proposition: does it exist, does it say that, is it still good law, does it fit this posture. No sampling. The model cannot check itself. (Rules 3.1, 3.3, 8.4(c))
• FILE — The record, the candor, and an honest bill. An answer to "how was this prepared?" that does not require improvising. (Rules 3.3, 1.5)

What is inside

• 18 chapters built around one working method
• 200+ prompts organized by practice area — research, contracts, litigation, transactional, client work, firm operations
• Five fill-in instruments: a matter screen, a verification log, the components of an informed consent process, a one-page firm AI policy, and a rule-by-rule checklist
• ABA Formal Opinion 512 quoted rather than paraphrased, mapped rule by rule
• Why the standard consent paragraph in your engagement letter is not enough — in the opinion's own words

A note on the prompts

None of the 200 prompts in this book verifies anything. Several organize verification so that a person can perform it. That distinction is the subject of Chapter 8, and it is the difference between the lawyers in the sanctions tracker and the ones who are not.

Who wrote this, and what it is not

George Chu is not an attorney. This book is not legal advice and is not an ethics opinion. Every statement in it about professional responsibility either quotes Formal Opinion 512 with the citation attached, or tells you to ask your bar. Your state's rules control.

What he can tell you is how these systems fail — the specific, structural ways they produce output built to survive a careful reading — and what a verification process looks like that does not collapse under a deadline. Not one of those 505 lawyers misread a case. They filed things nobody had opened. That is a workflow defect, and workflow defects have known shapes.

He holds a Master of Engineering in Software Engineering from Peking University and is a Senior Member of the IEEE.

Chapter 1 is a list of judgments. Start there.

Détails de l'édition

• Éditeur: Independently published
• Date d'édition: 2026
• Langue: anglais
• ISBN 13: 9798190442700
• Reliure: Paperback
• Nombre de pages: 145
• Coordonnées du fabricant: non disponible
• Personne responsable: non disponible