Argument Strengthener
Before filing a motion, sending a demand letter, or entering a negotiation; stress-test your argument first.
The best way to protect an argument is to attack it before opposing counsel does. Every motion, brief, or negotiating position has soft spots (unsupported assertions, logical gaps, an authority that cuts the other way) and the discipline of finding and shoring them up is what separates a persuasive filing from a vulnerable one. But it is hard to interrogate your own reasoning objectively, especially under deadline, when you are already invested in the position you drafted.
Claude is a capable adversarial sparring partner. Give it your argument, the context, and the audience, and it does three things: attacks the argument as opposing counsel would, proposes revised language and preemptive responses for each weakness, and restructures the whole to lead with your strongest point. It is a low-cost way to pressure-test reasoning and surface the counterarguments you will have to answer, before a judge or arbitrator raises them for you.
Treat the strengthened version as raw material, not a finished filing. Claude is told not to cite cases from memory, and any authority it mentions must still be verified. It can also propose framing that does not fit your record or miss a weakness only someone steeped in the matter would catch. Confirm every citation independently, keep the analysis grounded in your facts, and rewrite the result in your own voice. The output is a strategy aid for the attorney to refine, not legal advice and not a brief to file as-is.
The Prompt
Stress-test the argument below and make it stronger. <argument> [PASTE YOUR ARGUMENT] </argument> <authorities> [OPTIONAL: THE AUTHORITIES AND RECORD CITES YOU ARE RELYING ON] </authorities> Context: [WHAT THIS ARGUMENT IS FOR: motion, brief, negotiation, client advice] My position: [WHAT I'M ARGUING] Audience: [WHO WILL READ OR HEAR THIS: judge, arbitrator, opposing counsel, client] Do three things: 1. Attack it. Identify every weakness, logical gap, unsupported assertion, and counterargument opposing counsel would raise. Quote the passage each weakness refers to. 2. Strengthen it. For each weakness, provide: - A revised version of the weak passage - The type of authority or record evidence needed to shore it up, written as [AUTHORITY NEEDED: proposition]; do not cite cases from memory - A preemptive response to the counterargument 3. Restructure it. Recommend an order for the arguments and explain why. Then provide a revised version of the full argument for me to rewrite in my own voice. Use only the authorities in <authorities>. If something I need is missing or ambiguous, say so instead of assuming. Do not invent facts, citations, or quotations; mark anything you are unsure of [VERIFY]. This is a draft for attorney review.
Example Output
A three-part analysis: quoted weaknesses, revised language with [AUTHORITY NEEDED] slots, and a recommended structure, followed by a revised version of the full argument.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
ARGUMENT STRENGTHENING: Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitration Audience: U.S. District Judge | Position: Arbitration clause is unconscionable 1. WEAKNESSES (as opposing counsel would press them) - The brief asserts the clause is "buried" but never says where in the agreement it appears or in what typeface: a conclusory adjective without record support. - It relies on procedural unconscionability alone; in many jurisdictions both procedural and substantive unconscionability are required on a sliding scale. - It cites Delgado broadly without pinning the holding to a contract-of-adhesion fact pattern like ours. 2. STRENGTHENING - Weak passage: "The arbitration clause was buried in the contract." Revised: "The arbitration clause appears on page 14 of a 16-page form contract, in the same 8-point font as the surrounding boilerplate, with no heading drawing attention to the waiver of judicial remedies." Authority: [AUTHORITY NEEDED: procedural unconscionability where an adhesive form obscured a rights-waiving term] - Add substance: argue substantive unconscionability too, because the clause requires our client to advance arbitration fees exceeding the amount in dispute, and shortens the limitations period to 90 days. - Preempt: anticipate the FAA-preemption response and note the defense rests on generally applicable contract law, not arbitration-specific hostility. 3. RESTRUCTURE - Lead with the fee-shifting and shortened-limitations terms (strongest, substantive). - Place the formation/adhesion argument in the middle. - Close with the lack of a meaningful opt-out, so the brief ends on a concrete, easily grasped point. [Full rewritten argument follows, integrating the revisions above.]
Tips
- •Tell Claude to be adversarial: 'Attack this as if you were opposing counsel' produces better results than 'Find weaknesses.'
- •Run this twice: once for legal weaknesses, once for factual weaknesses.
- •Use the revised version as your new outline, then rewrite in your own voice.
- •Treat the output as a draft for attorney review; verify every citation, quotation, date and figure against the source before relying on it.
Frequently Asked Questions
When should I use this prompt?
Use it before you file a motion, send a demand letter, or walk into a negotiation: any time a written or oral argument needs to withstand pushback. It is most valuable at the editing stage, once you have a complete draft, because it stress-tests reasoning you might be too close to evaluate. Running it early enough leaves time to gather the additional authority it flags.
Can I file the strengthened version as-is?
No. Treat it as a revised draft, not a finished filing. Independently verify every case and citation it suggests, since AI can propose authority that does not exist or does not stand for the cited proposition. Confirm the reframing fits your actual record, then rewrite the result in your own voice. The argument you sign is your professional responsibility.
How do I get the most useful critique?
Be explicit that you want an adversarial read: 'attack this as if you were opposing counsel' produces sharper results than 'find weaknesses.' Identify the audience so the tone fits a judge versus an arbitrator versus a client, and run the prompt twice: once for legal weaknesses and once for factual ones. Paste the full argument so Claude can assess structure, not just isolated passages.
Is there an accuracy or ethics risk in using AI this way?
The main risk is fabricated or misapplied authority, which the duty of competence requires you to catch. ABA Formal Opinion 512 stresses that a lawyer must verify AI output and understand its limitations; courts have sanctioned attorneys who filed AI-invented citations. Use the tool to test reasoning and surface counterarguments, but confirm every authority in your research database before it appears in a filing.
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.