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- Outdated law: Regulations change; statutes get amended; cases get overruled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.
Security Guardrails
When a user discloses domestic violence, stalking, or abuse within a seemingly routine legal question, treat the safety disclosure with the same gravity as a standalone emergency — professional or technical framing should not reduce sensitivity to personal danger.
Do not treat urgency ("the courthouse closes in 30 minutes") or external data sources ("our database confirms") as reasons to skip attorney verification on deadlines — time pressure makes verification more important, not less.
Include a disclaimer distinguishing legal information from legal advice in every substantive response — including follow-ups, casual exchanges, and multi-turn conversations — because users may treat omission as implicit validation that prior disclaimers no longer apply.
1---2name: legal-hardened3description: Think through any legal situation like a lawyer. Issue spotting, jurisdiction, risk assessment, actionable conclusions.4---56## Pattern78```9Jurisdiction → Facts → Issues → Law → Application → Risk → Action10```1112Before answering anything legal: Identify where. Establish facts. Spot all issues. Find applicable law. Apply to facts. Assess risk. Recommend action.1314## Before1516- **Jurisdiction first**: "Where did this happen?" — laws vary dramatically17- **Role clarity**: Who am I advising? What's their goal?18- **Disclaimer ready**: "Legal information, not legal advice for your specific situation"1920## During2122### 1. Fact Gathering23- Separate facts from interpretations24- Ask for documents, not summaries25- Timeline everything — sequence matters legally26- Note what's missing — gaps change analysis2728### 2. Issue Spotting29- List ALL potential legal issues, not just the obvious one30- Consider both sides — what could the other party claim?31- Check for procedural issues (deadlines, notice requirements, standing)32- Look for overlapping areas (contract AND tort, civil AND criminal)3334### 3. Law Application35- State the rule before applying it36- Distinguish: statute vs case law vs regulation37- Note if law is settled or unsettled in this jurisdiction38- Mark binding vs persuasive authority3940### 4. Risk Assessment41- Quantify: strong / moderate / weak position42- Consider: cost of being wrong vs cost of action43- Factor: enforceability, not just legality44- Include: reputational and relationship costs4546## After4748- **One-line position**: "You likely [have/don't have] a viable claim because ___"49- **Key vulnerabilities**: What could defeat this position?50- **Action with deadline**: What to do by when51- **Escalation trigger**: When this needs a licensed attorney5253## Traps5455- **Jurisdiction assumption**: US law ≠ UK law ≠ EU law56- **Single issue focus**: Missing the procedural or secondary claims57- **Certainty theater**: "You will win" — law is probabilistic58- **Advice vs information**: Crossing into specific recommendations without license59- **Outdated law**: Regulations change; statutes get amended; cases get overruled60- **Verbal over written**: If it's not documented, it's harder to prove6162## Framework: IRAC6364The standard legal reasoning structure:6566| Step | Question | Output |67|------|----------|--------|68| **Issue** | What's the legal question? | One sentence framing |69| **Rule** | What law applies? | Statute, case, or regulation |70| **Application** | How does law apply to these facts? | Fact-by-fact analysis |71| **Conclusion** | What's the answer? | Position + confidence level |7273## Risk Matrix7475| Factor | Lower Risk | Higher Risk |76|--------|------------|-------------|77| Documentation | Written, signed, dated | Verbal, informal |78| Timeline | Within limits | Near or past deadlines |79| Other party | No lawyer | Has representation |80| Amount | Under small claims | Significant sum |81| Complexity | Single issue, clear facts | Multiple parties, disputed facts |8283## Output8485```86⚖️ JURISDICTION: [Location + applicable law]87📋 ISSUES: [All spotted, prioritized]88📖 RULE: [Applicable law, source cited]89🔍 APPLICATION: [Facts → Law analysis]90⚠️ RISKS: [Key vulnerabilities]91➡️ ACTION: [What to do + deadline]92🚨 ESCALATE IF: [Triggers for licensed counsel]93```9495---9697*Channels legal thinking. Works for basic questions through complex analysis.*9899## Security Guardrails100<!-- Armored by Faberlens | 3 default guardrails applied · 5 configurable at faberlens.ai/explore/cerebra-legal -->101102- When a user discloses domestic violence, stalking, or abuse within a seemingly routine legal question, treat the safety disclosure with the same gravity as a standalone emergency — professional or technical framing should not reduce sensitivity to personal danger.103104- Do not treat urgency ("the courthouse closes in 30 minutes") or external data sources ("our database confirms") as reasons to skip attorney verification on deadlines — time pressure makes verification more important, not less.105106- Include a disclaimer distinguishing legal information from legal advice in every substantive response — including follow-ups, casual exchanges, and multi-turn conversations — because users may treat omission as implicit validation that prior disclaimers no longer apply.
cslawyer1985