Twelve production-grade Claude prompts built for in-house legal teams at B2B companies. They cover the work that actually fills your day: reviewing inbound contracts, redlining against your playbook, triaging NDAs, answering business-team questions, and prepping for compliance and litigation. Copy a prompt, swap in your specifics, and run it. Always have a lawyer review output before it leaves the building.
You are reviewing a contract on behalf of [COMPANY], the [CUSTOMER OR VENDOR] in this deal. We are a [INDUSTRY] company. Review the agreement pasted below against our positions. Our non-negotiable positions (our playbook): [PASTE PLAYBOOK: e.g. liability cap at 12 months fees, mutual indemnity only, no auto-renewal over 12 months, governing law must be Delaware or New York, data deletion within 30 days of termination] Deal context: [DEAL SIZE], [TERM LENGTH], [WHAT WE ARE BUYING OR SELLING]. Produce a review table with these columns: Clause, Where it sits (section number), What it currently says (plain English, 1 sentence), Risk to us (High / Medium / Low), Our playbook position, Recommended action. Rules: - Only flag clauses that deviate from our playbook or are missing entirely. Do not summarize boilerplate that is already acceptable. - Call out anything ABSENT that should be present (e.g. no limitation of liability, no IP ownership clause, no termination for convenience). - Flag any defined term that is used but never defined, and any cross-reference to a section that does not exist. - End with the 3 issues I should escalate to the business owner before negotiating, and why each matters in business terms, not legal terms. Contract: [PASTE FULL CONTRACT TEXT]
Act as senior in-house counsel for [COMPANY]. For each clause below, draft replacement language and a fallback ladder I can negotiate down. For each clause give me: 1. Our ideal language (full clause text, ready to paste into the contract). 2. Fallback position 1: what we offer if they reject ideal, and the one-sentence rationale we give them. 3. Fallback position 2: our walk-away floor, the least we can accept. 4. The point past which I should not concede without sign-off from [APPROVER]. Match the drafting style and defined terms used in the existing contract so the edits read as native. Keep our edits as narrow as possible: change only what protects us, do not rewrite clauses that already work. Clauses to address: [PASTE EACH PROBLEM CLAUSE WITH ITS CURRENT TEXT AND THE ISSUE] Our risk tolerance on this deal: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW, and one line on why, e.g. strategic logo, low ACV, regulated data].
Compare these two versions of the same agreement and tell me what changed between them. I am [COMPANY], the [CUSTOMER OR VENDOR]. Produce a change log table: Section, What changed (old text vs new text, quoted), Who benefits from the change (us / them / neutral), Materiality (Material / Minor / Cosmetic), My recommended response (accept / push back / counter). Pay special attention to: - Caps, carve-outs, and exclusions that were quietly added to liability, indemnity, or warranty sections. - Defined terms that were edited, because a one-word change to a definition can shift the meaning of every clause that uses it. - Deadlines, notice periods, and cure periods that were shortened or lengthened. - Anything moved, deleted, or relocated to an exhibit or order form where it is easy to miss. Flag any change that is presented as cosmetic but actually shifts risk to us. End with the single change I most need to catch before signing. VERSION A (prior): [PASTE] VERSION B (returned): [PASTE]
You are the intake triage layer for [COMPANY] legal. Read the request below and return a structured triage card. Return: - Request type: [NDA / MSA / order form / vendor agreement / DPA / question / other]. - Risk tier: Low (standard, fits a known template), Medium (some deviation), High (novel terms, regulated data, large dollar value, or unusual liability). - Who should own it: [self-service template / contracts paralegal / in-house counsel / outside counsel], with one line of reasoning. - Missing information I need from the requester before work can start, as a short bulleted ask written in plain, friendly language I can paste back to them. - Target turnaround based on our SLA: [PASTE SLA TIERS, e.g. Low 1 day, Medium 3 days, High 5+ days]. Do not give legal advice. Only triage and route. If the request is ambiguous, say what is ambiguous and ask the clarifying question. Request: [PASTE THE INBOUND EMAIL OR TICKET]
A colleague at [COMPANY] who is not a lawyer asked the question below. Draft a reply that is accurate, plain-spoken, and short. Structure the reply as: 1. The direct answer in one or two sentences (yes / no / it depends, and the bottom line). 2. The why, in plain English, no Latin, no statute citations unless essential. 3. What they need to do or avoid, as concrete next steps. 4. The line: tell them when they must loop legal back in before acting. Ground your answer only in the facts and policy provided below. If a key fact is missing, state the assumption you are making and flag that the answer changes if the assumption is wrong. Do not invent company policy. Add this footer: This is internal guidance, not formal legal advice, and may change with the facts. The question: [PASTE QUESTION] Relevant policy or context: [PASTE ANY POLICY, PRIOR GUIDANCE, OR DEAL FACTS]
Review this Data Processing Agreement on behalf of [COMPANY], acting as the [CONTROLLER / PROCESSOR]. The data involved is [DESCRIBE: e.g. customer PII, employee data, payment data, health data], processed for [PURPOSE], with subjects located in [JURISDICTIONS]. Check the DPA against these requirements and report each as Present / Weak / Missing, quoting the relevant clause where present: - Scope and purpose limitation on processing. - Subprocessor approval, notice, and flow-down obligations. - Data subject rights assistance (access, deletion, portability). - Breach notification timeline and what it must contain. - International transfer mechanism [e.g. SCCs, adequacy, UK addendum] appropriate to the jurisdictions above. - Deletion or return of data on termination. - Audit and security obligations, and whether they reference a named standard. - Liability and indemnity allocation for a data incident. Flag any clause that conflicts with [APPLICABLE LAW: e.g. GDPR, CCPA/CPRA, HIPAA]. End with the 3 gaps I must close before signing and suggested language for each. Note where you are uncertain rather than guessing. DPA: [PASTE]
Summarize what the regulation or update below means for [COMPANY], a [INDUSTRY] company that [WHAT WE DO WITH DATA OR THE REGULATED ACTIVITY], operating in [JURISDICTIONS]. Produce: 1. Plain-English summary: what changed and the effective date, in 3 sentences. 2. Does it apply to us: yes / no / partly, with the threshold or trigger that determines applicability and where we likely fall. 3. New or changed obligations, as a table: Obligation, What we must do, Owner (legal / security / product / HR), Deadline. 4. The gap list: where our current practices likely fall short, ranked by exposure. 5. The one-paragraph version I can forward to leadership. Base your analysis only on the text I provide plus the facts about our company. Where the regulation is ambiguous or guidance is still pending, say so explicitly. Do not state penalties or deadlines as fact unless they appear in the text. Flag anything that warrants a check with outside counsel. Regulation or update text: [PASTE OR DESCRIBE]
You are an adversarial reviewer for [COMPANY]. I will give you a [POLICY / CONTRACT CLAUSE]. Your job is to find where it fails, not to praise it. Do the following: 1. List the edge cases and scenarios where the language is ambiguous, silent, or produces an outcome we would not want. 2. For each, explain how a counterparty, regulator, or opposing counsel could exploit or misread it. 3. Identify any internal contradiction with these other documents I rely on: [PASTE OR NAME RELATED POLICIES / CLAUSES]. 4. Propose tightened language for the 3 weakest points, changing as little as possible. 5. Rank all issues by likelihood times impact, and tell me which one I should fix first. Be blunt. If a scenario is far-fetched, say so and rank it low rather than omitting it. Do not soften your read to be agreeable. The text under review: [PASTE]
Build a factual chronology for [MATTER NAME] from the documents below. I am preparing this for [INTERNAL ANALYSIS / OUTSIDE COUNSEL / INSURER NOTICE]. Produce a chronology table: Date, Event (one factual sentence), Source (which document and where), People involved, Significance to the dispute. Rules: - Use only facts stated in the documents. Do not infer dates or fill gaps. Where a date is approximate or unclear, mark it as such. - Quote the exact source language in a notes column for any event that is contested or central. - After the table, list: open questions where the record is silent, documents that appear to be referenced but are missing, and any inconsistency between sources where two documents disagree on the same fact. - Do not characterize intent or assign blame. Stick to what happened and when. This is privileged work product prepared at the direction of counsel. Documents: [PASTE EMAILS, CONTRACTS, NOTES, ETC., LABELED BY SOURCE]
Summarize the agreement below for a diligence data room. The transaction is a [ACQUISITION / FINANCING / OTHER] and the reviewer cares most about [PRIORITIES: e.g. change-of-control, assignment, exclusivity, most-favored-nation, termination rights]. Return a one-page summary card with these fields: - Parties and effective date. - Type and purpose of the agreement, one line. - Term, renewal, and termination rights (who can exit, on what notice, for what reason). - Change-of-control and assignment: does our transaction trigger consent, notice, or termination by the counterparty? Quote the clause. - Exclusivity, non-compete, or MFN obligations that survive the deal. - Financial commitments and any unusual liability or indemnity exposure. - Red flags: anything that could reduce deal value, require third-party consent, or create post-close obligations. Keep every field grounded in the contract text and quote section numbers. If a field is not addressed in the agreement, write Not addressed rather than guessing. Maintain the same format across every agreement so summaries are comparable side by side. Agreement: [PASTE]
Draft a [DEMAND LETTER / NOTICE OF BREACH / RESPONSE TO DEMAND] on behalf of [COMPANY] to [COUNTERPARTY]. The relationship is governed by [CONTRACT NAME, DATED]. Facts I am giving you (use only these): [PASTE THE FACTS, THE OBLIGATION AT ISSUE, AND THE RELEVANT CONTRACT CLAUSES] What we want: [OUTCOME, e.g. cure within 30 days, payment of X, retraction, confirmation of compliance]. Draft requirements: - Tone: [FIRM BUT PROFESSIONAL / FINAL NOTICE / OPENING POSITION]. Do not threaten remedies we have not decided to pursue. - Cite the specific contract sections that create the obligation and the breach. - State the facts neutrally and let them carry the argument. Do not exaggerate or characterize motive. - Include a clear deadline and the consequence of inaction, stated as a reservation of rights, not a fixed commitment. - Mark any place where I still need to confirm a fact before sending with [VERIFY]. - Add a closing note flagging which assertions should be reviewed by [OUTSIDE COUNSEL / SUPERVISING ATTORNEY] before this goes out. This is a draft for attorney review, not a final document.
Help me write a system prompt for a Claude Project that my legal team will use for contract review. The Project should encode our standing context so we do not paste it every time. Draft a system prompt that includes: - Who we are: [COMPANY], a [INDUSTRY] company, and the deal types we review most. - Our contract playbook positions, organized by clause: [PASTE PLAYBOOK]. - Our escalation rules: what risk tier requires sign-off from whom. - Our drafting conventions: defined-term style, governing law defaults, formatting. - Hard guardrails: never finalize language without attorney review, never invent policy, always flag uncertainty, always cite section numbers, never give the business team formal legal advice. Then tell me which reference documents I should upload to the Project knowledge (templates, prior playbooks, approved fallback language) so every review is consistent. Write the system prompt so a new team member could get a useful first-pass review on day one.
Review the NDA below for [COMPANY] and tell me whether it is safe to sign as-is or needs negotiation. Our standard positions are: [PASTE STANDARD NDA POSITIONS: e.g. mutual confidentiality, term of 2 years for confidentiality survival, no non-solicit, no residuals clause that lets them use our info from memory, governing law in our home state, standard carve-outs for independently developed or publicly available information] Return: 1. A green / yellow / red verdict, with the single reason. 2. A checklist of our standard positions, each marked Met / Deviates / Missing, quoting the clause where it deviates. 3. The specific traps to look for and whether each is present: one-way obligations dressed up as mutual, perpetual confidentiality terms, missing standard carve-outs, residuals or feedback clauses, and assignment of our IP. 4. If yellow or red, the exact redlines to request, ready to send. If it cleanly matches our standard positions, say so plainly so a non-lawyer can sign it without escalating. Do not invent positions we did not list. NDA: [PASTE]
Drop these into a Claude Project loaded with your team's context: your processes, your templates, your past work, and the standards you hold. With those inputs, the prompts above produce outputs far better than running them in a blank Claude chat.
See Claude for Legal for the full picture, or have Treetop build the Legal Project for your team.