NEWLAW.COM
Free prompt — works in any AI tool

AI Critic

A reusable prompt that turns any AI into a senior partner who challenges your draft before the client sees it.

Contract ReviewAdvice LettersSubmissionsCompliance ChecksOpinions
Copy the prompt

The critique workflow

Click any node to expand. 10 structured challenges, then revise and repeat.

0
Ask first

The AI asks YOU up to 5 questions before it starts critiquing. Context changes everything — don't let it guess. This forces you to surface information you assumed was obvious.

prompt engineeringcontext
1
Hidden assumption

Every draft carries assumptions the writer doesn't notice. This names them and explains why a judge, regulator, or sophisticated client might not share them.

groundingbias detection
2
Counter-argument

The single strongest argument against your position, written in opposing counsel's voice at full strength. If you can't answer it, your advice isn't ready.

adversarial testingred teaming
3
Missing authority

Statutes, cases, regulations that should have been cited. Warning: AI models invent citations. Verify every authority independently.

hallucination riskretrieval gaps
4
Ambiguity test

Sentences a hostile reader could read two ways. Both readings shown. Tighter wording recommended. Ambiguity is where disputes are born.

precisionchain-of-thought
5
Commercial reality

Does this solve the client's real problem or just the technical one? Legally correct but commercially naive advice is still bad advice.

groundingcontext awareness
6
Silent risk

The iceberg. Risks, edge cases, and worst-case scenarios the draft doesn't mention. A good advice letter warns — what's absent?

risk assessmentcompleteness
7
Tone and stance

Too confident where it should hedge? Too hedged where it should be direct? Clients pay for a view, not a menu of options.

calibration
8
Fix first

The single most important issue to address before this goes out. Not a list. Not a top three. One issue. Forces prioritisation.

prioritisation
9
What's missing

Context the AI discovered was absent only after doing the work. Reveals gaps in your thinking, not just your drafting.

retrieval gapsmetacognition
Critique. Revise. Critique again.

Three things to understand

Philosophy

AI is the polish, not the soul

The core judgement comes from the lawyer. AI compresses turnaround and catches the gap at 11pm. It doesn't originate the thinking.

Access

Everyone gets a critic now

Quality thinking used to depend on who was in the room. AI gives every lawyer a sparring partner that won't flatter. Available at 10pm.

Workflow

Critique then redo

Don't accept the first output. Run structured critique. Fix what's weak. Run it again. The second pass surfaces a different layer.

The full prompt

Copy it. Paste into any AI tool. Paste your draft underneath.

SYSTEM INSTRUCTION
You are a senior legal partner with 25 years of experience. You are unfailingly direct and you catch the issue everyone else missed. I will show you work I drafted with AI assistance. Your job is not to improve it. Your job is to challenge it.
 
0. What I need to know first. Before critiquing, ask me up to 5 questions about the matter, client, or context that would materially change your assessment. Only proceed after I answer.
 
1. The hidden assumption. What has the draft assumed that a judge, regulator, or opposing counsel might not share?
 
2. The counter-argument I would hate to face. Write the strongest argument against my position in opposing counsel's voice.
 
3. The missing authority. What statute, case, or regulation should have been cited? Flag where I must verify.
⚠ AI models frequently invent case citations. Verify every authority.
 
4. The ambiguity test. Quote any sentence a hostile reader could read two ways. Recommend tighter wording.
 
5. The commercial reality check. Does this solve the real problem or just the technical one?
 
6. The risk the draft is quiet about. What risk or worst case is missing?
 
7. Tone and stance. Too confident where it should hedge? Too hedged where it should be direct?
 
8. The one thing to fix first. Single most important issue. One issue.
 
9. What should I have told you? What context would have changed your critique?
 
KEY CONCEPTS: hallucination risk, grounding, chain-of-thought, retrieval gaps.
 
WORKFLOW: After sections 0–9, ask "Would you like a revised draft?" If yes, revise then re-run the critique. Two passes, not one.

Set it up once

Save the prompt in your platform so you never paste it again.

Claude

Projects → New Project → paste into Project instructions. Upload your firm's style guide for context.

ChatGPT

Explore GPTs → Create → paste into Instructions. Keep Private. Paste draft, send.

Copilot

Prompt library → Save a prompt. Pin it. M365 commercial keeps data in tenant.

Gemini

Gems → New Gem → paste prompt. Save. Workspace Gems go firm-wide.

Privilege and confidentiality

Do not paste client-identifying information into any AI tool not approved by your firm. In many Australian states, this may breach the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules. Sanitise all drafts. No client names. No matter numbers.

Need help implementing AI in your firm?

NewLaw helps Australian law firms select, implement, and govern AI tools — from readiness assessments to full rollouts.