Closed-Universe Research Memo
After you have pulled the relevant authorities from a research service and want a first-draft memo that stays strictly within them, so every legal statement traces to a source you have read.
The biggest risk in AI-assisted legal research is not bad analysis; it is analysis built on authority that does not say what the model remembers, or does not exist at all. A closed-universe memo removes that risk at the source. You decide which authorities are in play, and the memo is allowed to rely on nothing else, so every rule statement can be traced to text you have actually read.
This prompt puts the facts and each authority in its own labeled block, then asks for a standard IRAC memo with strict rules: every statement of law is quoted with a source ID and pinpoint, holdings are separated from dicta, conflicts between sources are quoted side by side, and any part of the question the sources do not answer is labeled unresolved instead of filled from memory. A closing source table shows what each authority was used for, which makes review fast.
The memo is limited by your research. If the controlling case is not in the source blocks, the memo will not find it, and the unresolved section is only a prompt to look further. Claude can also misread a passage or overstate a holding, so every quotation and pinpoint needs to be checked against the original and every authority confirmed in a citator. The output is a draft for attorney review, and the legal conclusions are yours.
The Prompt
Draft an internal research memo for [CLIENT OR MATTER] on the question below, using only the authorities I paste. I represent [PARTY / ROLE]. Jurisdiction: [JURISDICTION]. Audience: [SUPERVISING ATTORNEY / FILE]. Question presented: [STATE THE QUESTION] Key facts: <facts> [PASTE THE RELEVANT FACTS] </facts> <source id="S1" citation="[FULL CITATION]"> [PASTE FULL TEXT OR RELEVANT EXCERPT OF AUTHORITY 1] </source> <source id="S2" citation="[FULL CITATION]"> [PASTE AUTHORITY 2] </source> [ADD MORE SOURCE BLOCKS AS NEEDED] Rules for this memo: 1. Use only the sources above. Do not cite or rely on any authority, rule or principle from memory, even if you are confident it exists. 2. Every statement of law must quote the source and give the source ID and a pinpoint (page, paragraph or section as it appears in the pasted text). If the pasted text has no page markers, say so and cite the paragraph. 3. Distinguish holdings from dicta and note if a source is from another jurisdiction or a lower court, based on what the source itself shows. 4. If the sources do not answer part of the question, label that part UNRESOLVED BY PROVIDED SOURCES and describe what kind of authority would be needed. Do not fill the gap. 5. Note where sources conflict and quote both. Format (IRAC): - Question Presented - Brief Answer (with confidence level and why) - Facts (as given) - Discussion: for each issue, Issue, Rule (quoted, pin-cited), Application to our facts, Conclusion - Unresolved Questions and Research Needed - Source Table: ID | citation | what it was used for This is a draft for attorney review. I will verify every quotation and pinpoint against the original sources and confirm in a citator that each authority is still good law.
Example Output
An IRAC memo where every rule statement is a quotation with a source ID and pinpoint, gaps are labeled unresolved by provided sources, and a source table shows what each authority was used for.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
RESEARCH MEMORANDUM (DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW) To: Supervising attorney | Re: Linwood Sheet Metal, Inc. (employer) | Non-compete enforceability QUESTION PRESENTED Is the 24-month, statewide non-compete in Dmitri Vasquez-Hale's agreement enforceable under [JURISDICTION] law as reflected in the provided sources? BRIEF ANSWER Probably not as written, moderate confidence. S1 requires restrictions to be "no broader than necessary to protect a legitimate business interest" (S1, at 14), and S2 declined to enforce a statewide restriction where the employee "served customers in only two counties" (S2, para. 22). Whether a court would narrow the restriction is UNRESOLVED BY PROVIDED SOURCES. DISCUSSION Issue 1: Legitimate business interest Rule: "Customer goodwill developed at the employer's expense is a protectable interest." (S1, at 12) Application: Vasquez-Hale managed the employer's three largest accounts (Facts, para. 3), which fits the goodwill interest in S1. Conclusion: Likely a protectable interest. Issue 2: Geographic scope Rule: "A restriction covering territory where the employee never worked is unreasonable on its face." (S2, para. 22) Application: He worked only in the northern region (Facts, para. 4). The statewide scope exceeds that territory. Conclusion: Scope likely unreasonable under S2. Note: S2 is an intermediate appellate decision (S2, caption). Issue 3: Judicial modification UNRESOLVED BY PROVIDED SOURCES. Neither S1 nor S2 addresses whether a court may narrow an overbroad restriction. Research needed: [JURISDICTION] authority or statute on blue-penciling or reformation of restrictive covenants. CONFLICTS S1 describes 24 months as "within the range courts have accepted" (S1, at 15, dicta), while S2 calls 18 months "the outer limit for a sales role" (S2, para. 25). Both quoted; S1's statement appears to be dicta. SOURCE TABLE S1 | [CITATION] | Legitimate interest; duration (dicta) S2 | [CITATION] | Geographic scope; duration
Tips
- •Pull the authorities yourself from a research service, then paste them. This prompt trades breadth for reliability; it is only as complete as the sources you give it.
- •Paste full opinions or long excerpts with page markers where possible. Pinpoints are only meaningful if the pasted text shows where pages break.
- •Read the unresolved questions section first. It tells you where your research is thin before anyone relies on the memo.
- •If Claude cites something not in your source blocks, treat the whole draft with suspicion and rerun with the rule restated.
- •Treat the output as a draft for attorney review. Verify every quotation and pinpoint against the original and confirm each authority is still good law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does closed-universe mean in this context?
It means the memo may rely only on the authorities you supply, as in a closed-universe writing assignment in law school. Claude is told not to use any case, statute or principle from memory, even one it is confident about. That makes every statement traceable to text you have reviewed and keeps fabricated or misremembered authority out of the memo.
What if I do not know which authorities to include yet?
Do the research first in a research service, or use a broader research prompt to generate leads and then confirm those leads independently before pasting them here. This prompt is the second stage, turning confirmed authorities into analysis. Starting with it before you have the right sources will produce a memo that is reliable but incomplete, with a long unresolved section.
How long can the pasted sources be?
Claude can handle long documents, so full opinions are usually fine, and full text gives better pinpoints and context than short excerpts. For very large sets, paste the most relevant opinions in full and excerpt the rest, labeling each excerpt clearly. If the pasted text has no page markers, the prompt cites paragraphs and says so, so you know to convert pinpoints before the memo is used in a filing.
Why does the memo still need verification if it only uses my sources?
Because Claude can misread a passage, quote it slightly wrong, attach the wrong pinpoint or treat dicta as a holding. Your sources may also have subsequent history you have not checked. Compare each quotation to the original, confirm each pinpoint and run every authority through a citator before relying on the memo or reusing its language in a brief.
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.