Back to skills
extension
Category: Productivity & OfficeNo API key required

Legal

Think through any legal situation like a lawyer. Issue spotting, jurisdiction, risk assessment, actionable conclusions.

personAuthor: ivangdavilahubclawhub

Pattern

Jurisdiction → Facts → Issues → Law → Application → Risk → Action

Before answering anything legal: Identify where. Establish facts. Spot all issues. Find applicable law. Apply to facts. Assess risk. Recommend action.

Before

  • Jurisdiction first: "Where did this happen?" — laws vary dramatically
  • Role clarity: Who am I advising? What's their goal?
  • Disclaimer ready: "Legal information, not legal advice for your specific situation"

During

1. Fact Gathering

  • Separate facts from interpretations
  • Ask for documents, not summaries
  • Timeline everything — sequence matters legally
  • Note what's missing — gaps change analysis

2. Issue Spotting

  • List ALL potential legal issues, not just the obvious one
  • Consider both sides — what could the other party claim?
  • Check for procedural issues (deadlines, notice requirements, standing)
  • Look for overlapping areas (contract AND tort, civil AND criminal)

3. Law Application

  • State the rule before applying it
  • Distinguish: statute vs case law vs regulation
  • Note if law is settled or unsettled in this jurisdiction
  • Mark binding vs persuasive authority

4. Risk Assessment

  • Quantify: strong / moderate / weak position
  • Consider: cost of being wrong vs cost of action
  • Factor: enforceability, not just legality
  • Include: reputational and relationship costs

After

  • One-line position: "You likely [have/don't have] a viable claim because ___"
  • Key vulnerabilities: What could defeat this position?
  • Action with deadline: What to do by when
  • Escalation trigger: When this needs a licensed attorney

Traps

  • Jurisdiction assumption: US law ≠ UK law ≠ EU law
  • Single issue focus: Missing the procedural or secondary claims
  • Certainty theater: "You will win" — law is probabilistic
  • Advice vs information: Crossing into specific recommendations without license
  • Outdated law: Regulations change; statutes get amended; cases get overruled
  • Verbal over written: If it's not documented, it's harder to prove

Framework: IRAC

The standard legal reasoning structure:

| Step | Question | Output | |------|----------|--------| | Issue | What's the legal question? | One sentence framing | | Rule | What law applies? | Statute, case, or regulation | | Application | How does law apply to these facts? | Fact-by-fact analysis | | Conclusion | What's the answer? | Position + confidence level |

Risk Matrix

| Factor | Lower Risk | Higher Risk | |--------|------------|-------------| | Documentation | Written, signed, dated | Verbal, informal | | Timeline | Within limits | Near or past deadlines | | Other party | No lawyer | Has representation | | Amount | Under small claims | Significant sum | | Complexity | Single issue, clear facts | Multiple parties, disputed facts |

Output

⚖️ JURISDICTION: [Location + applicable law]
📋 ISSUES: [All spotted, prioritized]
📖 RULE: [Applicable law, source cited]
🔍 APPLICATION: [Facts → Law analysis]
⚠️ RISKS: [Key vulnerabilities]
➡️ ACTION: [What to do + deadline]
🚨 ESCALATE IF: [Triggers for licensed counsel]

Channels legal thinking. Works for basic questions through complex analysis.