ChatGPT Prompt: Counterarguments to Your Draft Argument, Tied to the Record
Stress-tests your draft argument. It generates the other side's best counterarguments, each tied to a record cite or an authority you pasted, then your possible replies drawn from the same material. Internal work product.
The Prompt
Variables (7)
| Variable | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| {{our_argument}} | Our Draft Argument | Argument II: Defendant's non-compete does not protect a legitimate interest because ... |
| {{record}} | Record Facts With Cites | Signing bonus of $5,000 paid Jan. 4, 2024 — Ex. C at 1. Employee's last day was Aug. 30, 2025 — Dkt. 12-1 at 2. |
| {{authorities}} | Authorities With Pasted Text | Paste each authority with citation and the exact words you rely on. |
| {{opposing}} | Opposing Papers | Paste the other side's brief, letter or position statement, with page numbers. |
| {{court_rules}} | Court and Governing Rules | State court, Hennepin County; rule text pasted below with the authorities |
| {{attorney_view}} | Attorney's Own Assessment | Our weakest point is the consideration question. |
| {{max_count}} | Maximum Counterarguments | 5 |
Expected Output
Registers of record items and authorities, conflicts, count check, then for each counterargument: the argument in the other side's voice, the record and authority anchors, the weak spot in your draft, your possible replies, and authority-needed markers; then declined requests, missing information and a verification list.
Usage Notes
Use before filing or before a hearing or negotiation. Paste your draft argument, the record with cites and the authorities with their text. The number of counterarguments is capped by what your material supports: a shorter list is correct if the record is thin. This output is internal work product; do not forward it or paste it into a filing. Not legal advice. The attorney remains responsible for verifying every fact, figure and authority before use.
Double-check before use
- Check that no reply proposes adjusting or conceding part of your claim. In testing, one did where an exhibit contradicted the draft.
These are the places where this prompt was seen to slip when tested on sample cases with a small AI model.
Originally featured in: How to Use AI for Legal Research Safely in 2026: The Complete Workflow
Related Prompts
Claude Prompt: Pre-Litigation Demand or IP Cease-and-Desist Letter
Drafts a pre-litigation demand letter or an intellectual property cease-and-desist letter from the facts, documents and governing text you paste. The relief and response date are yours; no law, damages theory or deadline is added from memory.
Gemini Prompt: Motion to Compel Outline Built on Your Requests and Responses
Outlines a motion to compel from the discovery requests, the responses and objections, and the meet-and-confer letters you paste. Legal standards appear only as the rule text you paste, and nothing is stated about the meet-and-confer that the correspondence does not show.
Coordinated Interrogatories, RFPs and RFAs Built From Your Record
Drafts interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admission as one coordinated set from the topics, record facts and rule text you paste. Numerical limits come only from the rule text, and no request asserts a fact your record does not support.
Claude Prompt: Appellate Decision IRAC Memo With Pinpoint Cites
Turns an appellate decision you paste into an IRAC-style research memo in which every statement carries a page or paragraph marker. The holding is quoted, dicta only where the court marks it, and later history is left to your citator.
* These prompts are drafting and analysis aids for licensed attorneys. They are not legal advice and do not replace professional judgment. AI output can contain errors, including invented citations and incorrect deadlines: verify every fact, figure, authority and deadline against primary sources before relying on it. Rules vary by jurisdiction, and you remain responsible for the final work product.