Legal Writing Editor
When the substance of a brief, memo, letter or contract section is settled and you want it tighter and clearer before a final read, without risking a change to what it says.
Judges, clients and opposing counsel all read faster than they used to, and long, passive, qualifier-heavy drafts lose them. Most lawyers know how to edit for concision; few have time to do it line by line on every draft. The risk with handing that job to any editor, human or AI, is that a tighter sentence can quietly say something different, and in legal writing a moved qualifier or a swapped defined term is a substantive change.
This prompt edits for five things: concision, active voice, clear topic sentences, consistent defined terms and consistent citation format. It is told not to touch substance, quotations, citations, numbers, dates or the strength of any statement, and to treat contract language with extra care by flagging rather than rewriting operative wording. It returns the full edited draft, a before-and-after change log with a reason for each significant edit, a separate list of edits that could affect meaning and a word count before and after.
No editor can be trusted to know what a sentence is meant to accomplish in your case or deal, so every change still needs your eye, especially those on the attorney-decision list. Claude checks only that citations are formatted consistently, not that they are correct or still good law. Run a redline against your original before accepting the edits, verify citations separately and treat the output as a draft for attorney review.
The Prompt
Edit the draft below for clarity and concision. It is a [BRIEF / MEMO / CLIENT LETTER / CONTRACT SECTION] for [AUDIENCE: e.g. a trial judge, a client CFO, opposing counsel]. Length target: [WORD OR PAGE LIMIT, OR "AS SHORT AS CLARITY ALLOWS"]. <document name="draft"> [PASTE DRAFT] </document> <document name="style_reference"> [OPTIONAL: PASTE A SAMPLE OF WRITING IN OUR PREFERRED STYLE, OR THE FIRM STYLE GUIDE, OR "NONE"] </document> Edit for: 1. Concision: cut redundant words, throat-clearing and repeated points. 2. Active voice where the actor matters. 3. Topic sentences that state each paragraph's point. 4. Consistent defined terms: flag every place a defined term is used inconsistently or a synonym is substituted for it. 5. Consistent citation format within the draft (do not check whether citations are correct). Do not change substance, legal meaning, quotations, citations, defined terms, numbers, dates or the strength of any statement (for example, do not turn "may" into "will" or remove a qualifier). Contract and statutory language needs special care: in a contract section, edit only for readability and flag rather than change any operative wording. Output: 1. Edited draft in full. 2. Change log: for the most significant edits, show Before (quoted) | After | Reason, grouped by the five categories above. 3. Edits needing attorney decision: any change that could affect meaning, scope or emphasis, with the original quoted and your reason for flagging. 4. Defined-term and citation-format inconsistencies list. 5. Word count before and after. This is a draft for attorney review; I will accept or reject each change, and citations in the draft must be verified separately.
Example Output
The full edited draft plus a before-and-after change log with reasons, a list of edits that could affect meaning for the attorney to decide, defined-term and citation inconsistencies, and word counts.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
EDITED DRAFT (DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW) Document: Reply in support of motion to transfer venue | Audience: trial judge | Target: 10 pages [Full edited draft appears here.] CHANGE LOG Concision Before: "It is important to note that the Defendant, Brenwick Tool Corp., has at all relevant times maintained its principal place of business in the Northern District." After: "Brenwick has always maintained its principal place of business in the Northern District." Reason: removes throat-clearing; "Brenwick" is the defined term on p. 1. Active voice Before: "The contract was negotiated in the Northern District." After: "The parties negotiated the contract in the Northern District." Reason: the actors matter to the convenience argument. Topic sentences Before (para. 3 opening): "Plaintiff makes several arguments in its opposition." After: "None of Plaintiff's three convenience arguments outweighs the location of the witnesses." Reason: states the paragraph's point. EDITS NEEDING ATTORNEY DECISION 1. Original: "Most of the relevant witnesses likely reside in the Northern District." I kept "likely" and did not shorten to "The witnesses reside..." because removing it would strengthen the claim. Confirm the evidence supports the qualifier as written. 2. Original p. 7: "Plaintiff has conceded venue is proper in either district." Shortening to "Plaintiff concedes venue is proper" would change tense and drop "in either district." Left unchanged; confirm the concession is accurately described. DEFINED TERMS AND CITATIONS - "Brenwick" (defined p. 1) appears as "BTC" on p. 4 and "the Company" on p. 6. - "Agreement" and "Contract" both used for the same document. - Pinpoints use "at 12" on p. 3 and "p. 12" on p. 8. Format only; citations not verified. WORD COUNT Before: 3,412 | After: 2,866
Tips
- •Paste a sample of writing you like in the style reference block. Claude matches a concrete example much better than adjectives such as "crisp" or "persuasive."
- •Read the edits needing attorney decision list first. That is where an editor can accidentally move a qualifier or narrow a concession.
- •Run it after the substance is final. Editing for style while arguments are still changing creates a second round of review.
- •For contracts, keep operative language frozen and let Claude flag issues. Readability changes to a definition or covenant can shift risk allocation.
- •Compare the edited version against your original with a redline tool before accepting. The output is a draft for attorney review, and citations must be verified separately.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will Claude change my legal arguments when it edits?
The prompt forbids changes to substance, quotations, citations, numbers, dates and the strength of statements, and it separately lists any edit that could affect meaning so you can decide. That reduces the risk but does not eliminate it, because any editor can misjudge a subtle shift. Compare the edited version to your original with a redline before accepting, focusing on qualifiers, concessions and defined terms.
Can I use this on contract language?
Yes, carefully. For contract sections the prompt edits only for readability and flags operative wording rather than changing it, because a rewritten definition, covenant or condition can shift risk allocation. Use it to catch inconsistent defined terms and dense drafting, then make any changes to operative language yourself, with the deal terms in front of you.
How do I get the edits to match my own writing style?
Paste a few pages of writing you consider good, or your firm's style guide, into the style reference block. A concrete example works much better than describing a tone. If you edit the same type of document often, save the reference in a Claude Project so every edit starts from the same baseline without pasting it each time.
Does this check whether my citations are correct?
No. It only checks that citations in the draft use a consistent format, for example the same pinpoint style throughout. It does not confirm that any authority exists, is quoted accurately or is still good law. Use the citation verification audit prompt to build a cite-check worksheet and verify every authority against the original source and in a citator.
Related Prompts
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.