The Government Legal AI Prompt Pack

First, know the boundaries

The five ingredients of a strong legal prompt

Set the foundation

Your reusable government legal instruction

You are assisting a government legal professional with research, analysis, document review, and first-draft preparation.

Use only the approved materials, authorized sources, and connected tools provided for this assignment.

Do not invent statutes, regulations, judicial opinions, case citations, agency policies, quotations, dates, procedural history, or facts.

Clearly distinguish:

1. What the source materials establish.

2. What is inferred.

3. What is uncertain.

4. What requires further research.

5. What requires attorney judgment.

Cite the relevant document, page, section, clause, or passage for each material legal or factual proposition.

If a conclusion cannot be supported by the provided materials, say so.

Do not issue a final legal opinion, make an agency determination, contact external parties, or send, file, publish, or share a document.

Prepare organized, source-grounded work products suitable for qualified human review.

End each deliverable with a section titled Items requiring attorney verification.

Part 1: Get to the heart of the legal question

1. Prepare a first-pass legal research memorandum

Prepare a first-pass legal research memorandum addressing the following question:

Question: [Insert the legal question.]

Audience: [Insert the intended reviewer.]

Approved materials: [Attach or identify the relevant statutes, regulations, cases, agency guidance, or internal documents.]

Organize the memorandum as follows:

1. Question presented.

2. Preliminary short answer.

3. Relevant facts.

4. Applicable legal authorities.

5. Analysis.

6. Competing interpretations.

7. Missing facts or research.

8. Items requiring attorney verification.

For every material legal proposition, identify the specific source, section, page, or passage.

Do not invent authorities or fill gaps with assumptions. If the materials do not establish an answer, explain what additional research is required.

2. Compare competing interpretations

Using only the approved materials provided, compare the following interpretations of [insert provision]:

Interpretation A: [Insert.]

Interpretation B: [Insert.]

Interpretation C, if applicable: [Insert.]

Create a comparison table with:

• Interpretation.

• Supporting source language.

• Supporting authority.

• Potential weaknesses.

• Counterarguments.

• Operational consequences.

• Questions requiring additional research.

Distinguish what is expressly stated in the sources from what is inferred.

Do not identify an interpretation as legally controlling unless that conclusion is established by the provided authorities.

3. Turn a dense authority into a practical explanation

Review the attached [statute, regulation, decision, policy, or guidance].

Prepare a plain-language explanation for [insert audience].

Address:

1. What the authority says.

2. Who or what it applies to.

3. Relevant dates or deadlines.

4. Required actions.

5. Exceptions and limitations.

6. Unresolved implementation questions.

7. Issues requiring attorney review.

Cite the specific section or passage supporting each material requirement.

Do not introduce obligations, exceptions, deadlines, or interpretations that are not supported by the provided source.

Part 2: Review the document before it becomes the issue

4. Spot issues in a draft agreement

Review the attached [insert document type].

Prepare a first-pass legal issue-spotting report covering:

• Scope.

• Agency authority.

• Responsibilities.

• Funding or payment.

• Confidentiality.

• Data handling.

• Records management.

• Intellectual property.

• Liability.

• Term and termination.

• Dispute resolution.

• Missing definitions.

• Implementation responsibilities.

For each potential issue:

1. Identify the relevant clause.

2. Explain the question presented.

3. Cite any relevant provided authority.

4. Identify missing information.

5. Suggest a follow-up question for the responsible attorney or program team.

Do not state that a provision is legally permissible, prohibited, or approved unless the provided materials establish that conclusion.

5. Compare two versions of a legal document

Compare the attached original and revised versions of [insert document].

Identify substantive changes involving:

• Scope.

• Definitions.

• Responsibilities.

• Funding.

• Deadlines.

• Data rights.

• Confidentiality.

• Compliance obligations.

• Reporting.

• Termination.

• Approval authority.

Present the results in a table with:

1. Subject.

2. Original language.

3. Revised language.

4. Practical significance.

5. Potential legal question.

6. Recommended verification.

Separate meaningful changes from wording and formatting changes.

Do not assume a revised provision is acceptable without support from the approved source materials.

6. Find missing definitions and unresolved details

Review the attached draft for provisions that appear ambiguous, incomplete, or internally inconsistent.

Identify:

• Undefined terms.

• Missing attachments.

• Unidentified decision-makers.

• Responsibilities without owners.

• Dates without triggering events.

• Inconsistent dollar amounts.

• Conflicting obligations.

• References to policies not included in the materials.

• Approval requirements without a named authority.

For each issue, provide:

1. The relevant provision.

2. The missing or inconsistent information.

3. Why it matters.

4. The question that should be resolved.

Do not guess what the missing information should be.

Part 3: Handle the issues that are distinctly governmental

7. Review acquisition materials for legal questions

Review the attached [statement of work, performance work statement, solicitation, market research, or proposed contract document].

Identify questions that may require review by a government attorney or contracting officer.

Address:

• Clarity of the requirements.

• Scope.

• Evaluation criteria.

• Competition-related questions.

• Data rights.

• Confidentiality.

• Deliverables.

• Acceptance requirements.

• Performance periods.

• Changes and options.

• Responsibilities of program and acquisition personnel.

For each issue:

1. Identify the relevant document provision.

2. Explain the question.

3. Cite any supporting authority provided.

4. Identify the appropriate human reviewer.

Do not evaluate offers, recommend an award, determine vendor eligibility, disclose source-selection information, or make procurement decisions.

8. Organize public comments by legal issue

Review the attached public comments concerning [insert proposed rule, policy, or agency action].

Group the comments into recurring themes.

For each theme, identify:

1. The legal or policy question raised.

2. Representative comments.

3. Whether the comments support, oppose, or seek clarification.

4. The factual or legal reasoning presented.

5. Questions that require additional research.

6. Issues that should be elevated for attorney or subject-matter review.

Cite the comments supporting each theme.

If you report the number of comments raising an issue, count only the comments actually included in the provided materials.

Do not characterize comments as resolved or recommend a final agency position.

9. Build an initial FOIA review plan

Using the attached Freedom of Information Act request and approved agency guidance, prepare an initial review plan.

Identify:

• The apparent scope of the request.

• Relevant dates.

• Potential record custodians.

• Search terms.

• Likely categories of responsive records.

• Questions concerning privacy, privilege, confidentiality, or other potentially relevant exemptions.

• Issues requiring review by the agency’s FOIA professionals.

Present the result as a checklist.

Do not determine whether a record must be released, whether an exemption applies, whether a search is legally sufficient, or whether a deadline has been satisfied.

Clearly identify missing information.

10. Identify government ethics questions

Review the following hypothetical or approved scenario:

[Insert scenario.]

Using only the provided ethics rules and agency guidance, identify questions concerning:

• Financial interests.

• Gifts.

• Outside employment.

• Impartiality.

• Vendor relationships.

• Use of government resources.

• Post-employment restrictions.

• Missing facts.

For each issue:

1. Identify the relevant provided authority.

2. Describe the factual question.

3. Explain what must be confirmed.

4. Identify whether review by an ethics official is appropriate.

Do not determine that conduct is permitted, prohibited, or approved.

Part 4: Make legal guidance easier to act on

11. Prepare a one-page legal briefing

Prepare a one-page legal briefing on [insert issue] using only the approved materials provided.

Write for [insert intended audience].

Use the following structure:

1. The issue.

2. Why it matters.

3. What the sources establish.

4. Key legal considerations.

5. Potential options.

6. Operational risks and tradeoffs.

7. Missing information.

8. Questions requiring attorney review or leadership direction.

Use precise, plain language.

Cite the source supporting each material legal or factual assertion.

Do not present any option as legally approved unless the responsible government attorney has confirmed it.

12. Translate legal analysis for a program office

Translate the attached legal analysis into a practical explanation for [insert program office].

Explain:

• The question.

• Why it matters to the program.

• What the approved materials establish.

• Which actions may be necessary.

• Which questions require legal confirmation.

• What information the program team should provide.

• The next steps.

Use plain language and preserve the original legal meaning.

Do not introduce new requirements, deadlines, permissions, or legal conclusions.

End with:

What the program team should do next

What the legal team still needs to confirm

13. Turn legal meeting notes into an action tracker

Review the attached approved meeting notes.

Create:

A. A short meeting summary

B. An action tracker

The tracker should include:

• Issue.

• Action.

• Owner, if explicitly stated.

• Deadline, if explicitly stated.

• Required source material.

• Open legal question.

• Review or approval needed.

Separate confirmed decisions from topics that were only discussed.

If an owner, deadline, or decision is not documented, write Not confirmed.

Do not infer agency commitments, legal approvals, or consensus.

Part 5: Improve the work before someone else reviews it

14. Red-team a draft legal memorandum

Review the attached draft as a careful, skeptical government legal reviewer.

Identify:

• Unsupported legal conclusions.

• Citations requiring verification.

• Facts that appear assumed rather than established.

• Counterarguments that are missing.

• Ambiguous language.

• Unaddressed procedural requirements.

• Operational consequences.

• Questions a supervisor, opposing reviewer, or program office might raise.

Organize the feedback under:

Must verify

Should strengthen

Helpful clarification

Cite the specific part of the draft associated with each observation.

Do not invent contrary authorities or claim that a citation is incorrect without evidence.

15. Audit claims against the source materials

Review the attached draft against the approved source materials.

Create a verification table with:

1. Draft statement.

2. Supporting source.

3. Page, section, clause, or passage.

4. Assessment.

5. Recommended correction or verification step.

Use only the following assessment labels:

Supported

Partially supported

Not established

Requires attorney judgment

Pay particular attention to:

• Legal citations.

• Quotations.

• Dates.

• Agency authority.

• Policy requirements.

• Monetary amounts.

• Procedural obligations.

• Factual representations.

Do not supply missing authorities from memory.

If a claim cannot be verified from the provided materials, mark it Not established.

Bonus prompt: Give ChatGPT Work the whole assignment

Help me complete the following government legal work assignment.

Assignment

[Describe the legal issue, document, or question.]

Intended audience

[Identify the attorney, program office, legal team, or decision-maker.]

Approved materials

[Attach or identify the authorized sources.]

Requested deliverable

[Select: legal research memorandum, document comparison, issue checklist, acquisition review, executive briefing, meeting summary, or source-verification table.]

Complete the assignment in the following stages:

1. Restate the legal question.

2. Identify the approved materials available.

3. Organize the relevant facts.

4. Identify applicable authorities in the provided sources.

5. Separate established facts from assumptions.

6. Identify material legal questions.

7. Describe reasonable alternative interpretations.

8. Prepare the requested first draft.

9. Create a source-verification table.

10. List unresolved questions and missing materials.

11. Identify issues requiring attorney review.

If an important source or fact is missing, ask a focused clarification question or clearly identify the gap.

Do not invent authorities, make a final agency determination, or send, file, publish, or distribute any document.

Present your final work in this order:

A. Executive summary

B. Draft deliverable

C. Source and citation table

D. Open questions

E. Items requiring attorney verification

Your five-minute final check