Lawyers
Case Law Research Brief Generator
Transform a legal question into a structured research brief that surfaces relevant case law, identifies controlling precedents, and outlines the state of the law in your jurisdiction. Use this prompt to accelerate legal research and produce a first-draft brief that organizes arguments around the strongest available authorities.
Transforms a precisely stated legal question into a structured research brief that maps the applicable legal standard, describes the fact patterns that have produced favorable and unfavorable outcomes in analogous cases, identifies the key distinctions that determine outcomes, surfaces research gaps, and lists specific next research tasks. The output is a research planning document — not a citation-populated brief — that guides Westlaw or Lexis searches by defining exactly what the attorney is looking for before opening a database. Intended for litigators and appellate attorneys who need to structure a legal question and map the doctrine before beginning primary source research.
Testedclaude-sonnet-4-6ValidatedMar 2026ScopeThis is informational only, not legal advice. Recommend cons…TierProfessional
Constraints
This is informational only, not legal advice. Recommend consulting a licensed attorney for specific matters.
Do not fabricate case names, citations, statute numbers, or court rules — describe legal principles without inventing specific authorities.
Legal standards and controlling precedents vary significantly by jurisdiction — verify all conclusions against current primary sources before filing or advising.
This prompt cannot replace Westlaw or Lexis research — use it to structure and accelerate research, not to substitute for it.
Tested Models
claude-sonnet-4-6
Uncertainty
If information is ambiguous, incomplete, or the legal question falls outside the specified scope, clearly state your assumptions and recommend professional legal review.
Jurisdiction
US-general
Last updated
2026-05-28 — Published
The prompt
You are a senior litigation attorney with 15+ years of legal research experience, specializing in appellate practice and case law synthesis.
Generate a structured legal research brief on the following question:
Legal Question: [STATE YOUR LEGAL QUESTION — e.g., 'Does a landlord owe a duty of care to a guest injured on common area property in a residential complex?']
Research Parameters:
- Jurisdiction: [JURISDICTION — e.g., California, 9th Circuit, or federal]
- Practice area: [PRACTICE AREA — e.g., premises liability, contract law, employment law]
- Case posture: [CONTEXT — e.g., plaintiff briefing, defendant motion, appellate argument]
- Opposing arguments I anticipate: [KNOWN COUNTERARGUMENTS or 'Unknown']
Structure your research brief as follows:
## Legal Question Framed
Restate the question in precise legal terms.
## Applicable Legal Standard
Describe the controlling standard (e.g., reasonable care, strict liability, preponderance of evidence).
## Analysis of Key Legal Principles
Explain the doctrine and its development in your jurisdiction. Note any circuit splits or conflicting state court lines if applicable.
## Favorable Fact Patterns
Describe fact patterns from cases that would support this position (do not fabricate case names or citations).
## Unfavorable Fact Patterns
Describe fact patterns from cases that would undermine this position — anticipating opposing counsel's research.
## Key Distinctions
What facts or procedural postures most affect the outcome of this type of dispute?
## Research Gaps
Identify areas where you lack sufficient information to give a complete analysis, and specify what additional research would resolve each gap.
## Suggested Next Research Steps
List specific research tasks (e.g., 'Search Westlaw for [topic] in [jurisdiction] from 2020-present').
IMPORTANT: Do not fabricate case citations, case names, statute numbers, or rule numbers. If you reference a legal principle that is typically supported by case law, describe the principle and the type of authority that supports it without inventing specific citations.WAITLIST
Runner beta coming — join the waitlist.
In-product execution isn't live yet. Leave your email and we'll let you know if the Runner beta opens.
How to use this prompt
1
1. State your legal question as precisely as possible — the more specific the question, the more useful the structured analysis.
2
2. Fill in all four research parameters, especially jurisdiction — the legal standard can change dramatically across state lines.
3
3. Use the Research Gaps and Next Steps sections to build your actual Westlaw or Lexis search strategy, treating the AI output as a research outline rather than a finished product.
Customization tips
Add 'Assume we are at the summary judgment stage and plaintiff bears the burden' to tailor the analysis to your procedural posture.
Specify 'Focus on the last 5 years of case law development' to keep the analysis current rather than anchored in older doctrine.
For multi-jurisdiction matters, run the prompt separately for each jurisdiction and then compare the outputs to surface conflicts.
Add 'List analogous cases from [related practice area, e.g., products liability]' if you want to build cross-doctrinal arguments.
Sample output
LEGAL RESEARCH BRIEF — Constructive Eviction in Commercial Lease Context
ISSUE PRESENTED: Whether a commercial tenant who vacated the leased premises during an extended renovation period has a viable constructive eviction claim against the landlord, and what elements must be established to prevail.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Constructive eviction in commercial tenancy requires proof of three core elements: (1) a wrongful act or omission by the landlord that substantially interferes with the tenant's beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises; (2) the tenant's actual vacation of the premises within a reasonable time after the interference; and (3) a causal connection between the landlord's conduct and the vacation.
ELEMENT ANALYSIS:
Element 1 — Substantial Interference: Courts consistently hold that interference must be more than minor or temporary inconvenience. Renovation-related disruptions have supported constructive eviction claims where: the landlord failed to provide adequate notice of the scope and duration of work; noise, dust, or vibration rendered the space unfit for the tenant's permitted use; utility interruptions exceeded brief, necessary periods; or access to the premises was materially restricted.
In our client's matter, the renovation lasted approximately 14 weeks and rendered the tenant's commercial kitchen space inoperable for the entirety of that period. This duration and impact are likely sufficient to establish substantial interference if properly documented.
Element 2 — Timely Vacation: The tenant must not accept the interference by remaining in place for an unreasonable period. What constitutes "reasonable" depends on the duration and character of the interference, notice given, and the tenant's documented efforts to seek relief from the landlord. Here, the tenant vacated in week 6 of the renovation, which appears reasonable given the circumstances.
Element 3 — Causation: The landlord's failure to provide alternative space or rent abatement during the renovation period, despite requests, strengthens the causal link between the interference and the vacation decision.
RECOMMENDATION: The facts present a colorable constructive eviction claim. Key evidentiary needs include: lease language on landlord's renovation rights and notice obligations; all written communications requesting relief; documentation of the operational impact of the closure; and any prior representations about renovation scope and duration.
This brief is for informational purposes. Review all underlying facts with a licensed real property attorney before advising the client on available remedies.
Related prompts
Frequently asked questions
No — and you should not trust any AI tool that provides specific case citations without verification. AI language models are prone to hallucinating case names and citations that sound plausible but do not exist. This prompt is designed to help you structure your research question and identify the legal principles at play. Always verify every citation through Westlaw, Lexis, or a reliable primary source before using it in any filing or client advice.
Westlaw and Lexis AI tools have access to real-time legal databases and can return verified citations from their proprietary databases. This prompt is best used at the front-end of research to structure your legal question, map out the doctrine, and identify what you're looking for before you run your database search. Think of it as research planning, not research execution.
Yes, with appropriate modifications. For appellate work, specify the court and standard of review in the case posture field, and ask the AI to organize the analysis around the appellate standard rather than a trial court framework. The resulting outline can be a strong starting point for structuring your appellate argument before you populate it with verified citations.
Professional Disclaimer
This AI-generated content is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Always consult a licensed attorney for specific legal matters.