Answer and Affirmative Defenses Drafter
When a complaint has been served and you need to organize the client's position paragraph by paragraph and decide which affirmative defenses to plead before the response deadline.
Answering a complaint is detail work with real consequences. An admission in the answer can bind the client for the rest of the case, a careless denial can raise candor problems, and an affirmative defense left out may be waived. With dozens of numbered paragraphs, many of them mixing facts, characterizations and legal conclusions, it is easy to lose track of what the client actually knows.
This prompt makes the work systematic. You paste the complaint and the client's notes in separate tagged blocks, and Claude builds a table that proposes a response to every paragraph, quotes the client material behind each admission, and marks gaps as needing client input. It then lists candidate affirmative defenses with the supporting facts quoted, a rating of factual support, and a separate waiver-risk flag for defenses that may be lost if not pleaded now, and reminds you of threshold defenses that may need to be raised early.
Claude does not decide what to admit; you do. The prompt keeps limitations periods and procedural rules as placeholders, so the governing law, deadlines and waiver rules are for you to confirm in your jurisdiction. Review every proposed response with the client, verify any authority you add, and treat the output as a working draft rather than a pleading.
The Prompt
I represent the defendant, [CLIENT NAME], in [CASE NAME] pending in [COURT]. I need a working draft of our answer and a candidate list of affirmative defenses for my review. <complaint> [PASTE THE FULL COMPLAINT WITH PARAGRAPH NUMBERS] </complaint> <client_notes> [PASTE CLIENT INTERVIEW NOTES, KEY DOCUMENT EXCERPTS AND KNOWN DATES] </client_notes> Response deadline: [DATE]. Pleading rules: [FRCP 8 AND 12 / STATE RULE]. Part 1. Response table: Complaint ¶ | Allegation (short quote) | Proposed response (Admit; Deny; Admit in part, deny in part; Lack knowledge or information) | Support in client notes (quote it) | Note for attorney. - Propose "Admit" only where the client notes clearly support it. - For mixed paragraphs, say exactly which part is admitted. - Where a paragraph states a legal conclusion or characterizes a document, say so and suggest response language for my judgment. - If the notes do not address a paragraph, write "Need client input." - Add a general denial of any allegation not expressly admitted, if [COURT] permits one. Part 2. Candidate affirmative defenses: Defense | Supporting facts (quote the source) | Support (Supported; Possible, needs facts; Not supported) | Waiver risk if not pleaded now (High, Low, Check rule) | What we still need. Consider, among others, limitations, failure to mitigate, waiver, estoppel, release, payment, offset, arbitration and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Refer to any time limit or rule as [APPLICABLE RULE]. Do not cite cases or statutes. Part 3. Defenses or motions that may need to be raised before or with the answer (personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, venue, process and service, failure to state a claim, arbitration), noting which ones may be waived if not timely raised under [APPLICABLE RULE] and which can be raised later. List any allegation you could not match to the client notes. This is a draft for attorney review; I will verify all rules and authority.
Example Output
A paragraph-by-paragraph admit, deny or lack-knowledge table with quoted support, a list of candidate affirmative defenses rated by factual support, and a list of threshold defenses to consider.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
ANSWER WORKING DRAFT: Delgado v. Brightwater Logistics, Inc. (fictional) PART 1: RESPONSE TABLE ¶ 7 | "Plaintiff was employed as a dispatch supervisor from 2019 to 2025." | Admit in part, deny in part | Notes: "Started May 2020 as dispatcher, promoted to supervisor Jan 2022." | Admit employment; deny dates and title as stated. ¶ 12 | "Defendant routinely failed to pay overtime." | Deny | Notes: "Payroll shows OT paid weekly; one disputed week in Aug 2024." | Confirm the August 2024 week before finalizing. ¶ 15 | "The Handbook guarantees progressive discipline." | Characterizes a document | Suggested: "The Handbook speaks for itself; deny any characterization inconsistent with its terms." | Attorney to confirm this form is acceptable in [COURT]. ¶ 21 | "Plaintiff complained to HR on March 2, 2025." | Need client input | No reference in notes. PART 2: CANDIDATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Failure to mitigate | Notes: "She turned down the Reno position offered in April." | Possible, needs facts | Check rule | Need the written offer and her response. Limitations | Earliest pay period alleged: Jan 2019; employment began May 2020 per notes | Possible, needs facts | High | Confirm the [APPLICABLE RULE] period and accrual date. Release | Notes mention a 2023 separation agreement draft, unsigned | Not supported | High | Confirm whether any version was signed. Offset | Notes: "Advance of $2,400 never repaid." | Possible, needs facts | Check rule | Need the advance agreement. PART 3: THRESHOLD ISSUES - Notes say the arbitration agreement was signed at onboarding. Consider whether to move to compel before answering, and whether answering could be argued as a waiver under [APPLICABLE RULE]. UNMATCHED ALLEGATIONS: ¶¶ 21, 24, 30. All names and facts are fictional and illustrative.
Tips
- •Calendar the response deadline before you start; the table is only useful if there is time to get client input on the 'Need client input' paragraphs.
- •'Lack knowledge or information' is not a safe harbor for facts the client can readily learn. Check each one with the client.
- •Do not plead every defense on the list. Plead the ones with a factual basis you can stand behind, and confirm under your rules whether boilerplate defenses invite a motion to strike.
- •Confirm the limitations period and accrual date yourself; Claude will show you the dates in the record, not the governing period.
- •Everything here is a draft for attorney review, and any rule or authority you add must be verified.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does the prompt rate support and waiver risk separately?
They answer different questions. The support rating tells you whether the client notes already contain facts for the defense. The waiver-risk flag tells you whether the defense may be lost if it is not pleaded now, even while the facts are still developing. Together they help you decide what to plead in good faith today and what to investigate quickly, under your jurisdiction's pleading and amendment rules.
How should I handle paragraphs that characterize a document?
The prompt has Claude identify those paragraphs and suggest response language, but the choice is yours. Courts differ on whether responses like 'the document speaks for itself' are acceptable, so check local practice and your judge's preferences. Where you can, admit the document exists and deny any characterization inconsistent with its text.
Can Claude tell me the limitations period for each claim?
Not reliably, and the prompt tells it not to try. It will pull the relevant dates from the complaint and client notes, which is the raw material for your analysis. The governing period, accrual rules and any tolling are jurisdiction-specific questions you need to research and verify yourself.
Does this work for employment cases with an agency charge?
Yes. Paste the charge and any agency documents into the client notes block, and Claude will compare the complaint against them, which often surfaces exhaustion and scope issues. Confirm the administrative requirements for each claim under [APPLICABLE RULE], since they differ by statute and jurisdiction.
Related Prompts
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.