Motion Brief Outliner
Before writing any substantive motion or brief; outlining first produces better organized, more persuasive writing.
Strong motion practice starts before the first sentence of prose: an outline that orders the arguments by strength, ties each thesis to authority and facts, and budgets words against the court's page limit. Judges and clerks read a lot of briefs, and a clear structure that front-loads your best point does more persuasive work than polished language buried on page twelve. Outlining first is what separates an organized brief from a meandering one.
Claude is genuinely useful at this planning stage. Feed it the motion type, your position, the issues, the key facts, and your strongest and weakest points, and it returns a sectioned outline with thesis sentences, authority slots, fact-application notes, and anticipated counterarguments with rebuttals, plus a word-count estimate per section. You keep strategic control while skipping the blank-page problem and the manual word budgeting.
The outline is a thinking tool, not a filing. You still write the brief, confirm that every authority is real and on point, and adapt the structure to your record and your judge. Claude is told to use only the authorities you list and to mark gaps as [AUTHORITY NEEDED], and anything it says about a case must be independently verified. This page is practice guidance, not legal advice, and the brief that gets filed is the attorney's work and responsibility.
The Prompt
Create a detailed outline for the motion or brief below. <record> [PASTE KEY RECORD EXCERPTS, THE OPPOSING BRIEF (IF RESPONDING), AND THE JUDGE'S STANDING ORDERS AND ANY PRIOR RULINGS IN THIS CASE] </record> <authorities> [LIST THE CASES, STATUTES, AND RULES YOU HAVE VERIFIED, WITH THE PROPOSITION EACH SUPPORTS] </authorities> Motion type: [e.g., summary judgment, preliminary injunction, motion in limine] Court: [COURT] Page or word limit: [NUMBER] Filing deadline: [DATE] Our position: [MOVANT / RESPONDENT] Legal issue(s): [DESCRIBE EACH ISSUE] Strongest arguments: [YOUR BEST POINTS] Weakest points: [WHAT THE OTHER SIDE WILL ARGUE] Create an outline with: 1. Introduction (one paragraph: what we want and why we should get it) 2. Statement of facts, organized thematically and citing the record excerpts 3. Legal standard 4. Argument sections, one per issue, strongest first. For each: thesis sentence, supporting authorities, application to the facts, and the anticipated counterargument with a rebuttal 5. Conclusion 6. A list of formatting, filing, or certification requirements (including any AI-use certification) I should confirm in the local rules and standing orders Estimate a word count for each section to stay within the limit. Use only the authorities in <authorities>; where support is needed, write [AUTHORITY NEEDED: proposition]. 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 2-3 page outline with section headings, thesis sentences, authority slots, word count allocations, and a checklist of local-rule and certification items to confirm.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
OUTLINE: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Garcia v. Northpoint Retail, Inc., No. 26-3391 (N.D. Ill.)
Page limit: 15 pp. | Position: Movant
I. INTRODUCTION (~150 words)
Thesis: No genuine dispute of material fact exists on causation; plaintiff cannot show the alleged hazard existed long enough to charge defendant with constructive notice. Judgment should enter for defendant.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS (~600 words): organized by theme
A. The premises and inspection routine
B. The incident and absence of notice evidence
C. Plaintiff's own deposition admissions (no knowledge of how long the spill was present)
III. LEGAL STANDARD (~250 words)
Rule 56; movant's burden; nonmovant must point to specific record evidence.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. Plaintiff cannot establish constructive notice (~1,400 words): STRONGEST
- Thesis: Premises liability requires notice; no evidence of duration.
- Authority: [AUTHORITY NEEDED: constructive notice requires evidence of how long the hazard existed]
- Application: deposition admissions; inspection logs.
- Counterargument & rebuttal: "mode-of-operation" theory inapplicable on these facts.
B. Even assuming a duty, no breach as a matter of law (~900 words): ALTERNATIVE
- Thesis, authority, application, anticipated rebuttal.
V. CONCLUSION (~120 words): restate relief requested.
[NOTE: Fill each [AUTHORITY NEEDED] slot only with authority you have verified in your research database.]Tips
- •Put your strongest argument first.
- •Include the anticipated counterargument in your outline and address weaknesses head-on rather than ignoring them.
- •Paste the judge's standing orders and any prior rulings in this case; do not ask Claude to characterize a judge from memory.
- •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 in the briefing process should I use this?
Use it at the very start, before drafting prose, for any substantive motion such as summary judgment, a preliminary injunction, or a motion in limine. Outlining first surfaces structural problems and weak spots while they are cheap to fix, and the word-count estimates help you commit to the right depth per section against the page limit.
Is the outline something I can file?
No. It is a planning scaffold, not a brief. You write the argument, and you must independently confirm that every authority exists and supports the proposition before it appears in a filing. Treat any case the outline names as a lead to verify, not a citation to rely on. The filed brief is your work and responsibility.
How do I get a sharper outline?
Give the motion type, your position, the page limit, the specific issues, a tight fact summary, and candid statements of your strongest and weakest points. Naming the likely counterarguments lets Claude build rebuttals into the structure. The more concrete the inputs, especially the weaknesses, the more useful and honest the resulting outline.
What accuracy risks apply here?
The central risk is fabricated or misdescribed authority; AI can produce citations that look right but do not exist or do not hold what is claimed. Courts have sanctioned lawyers for filing such citations. Verify every case independently before use. Your duty of candor to the tribunal and ABA Formal Opinion 512's competence and supervision expectations both apply.
Related Prompts
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.