Analyze Financial Disclosures for Inconsistencies
Turn an opposing party's financial disclosure and supporting records into an organized summary, a prioritized inconsistency list, and ready-to-use discovery and deposition questions.
When to use this
You represent a client in a divorce or support matter and the other side has produced a financial affidavit plus bank statements, pay stubs, or tax returns. You need to organize the numbers, spot where they don't add up, and decide what to chase in discovery. Claude does the first-pass extraction and cross-checking so you spend your time investigating leads instead of building spreadsheets by hand.
Opposing financial disclosures arrive as a pile of PDFs: a sworn affidavit, a few months of bank statements, last year's tax return, maybe some pay stubs. The story they tell is rarely consistent, but finding the gaps by hand is slow, eye-straining work. Claude can read all of it at once and lay the figures side by side.
This workflow walks one document set through a single Claude conversation: extract income, assets, debts, and monthly expenses into a clean summary; cross-check the numbers across documents to surface inconsistencies, omissions, and red flags; then turn those findings into a prioritized discovery list and deposition questions. Each step builds on the last, so the context stays intact.
Treat everything Claude produces as a set of leads, not proof. An AI flag that 'reported income doesn't support these expenses' is a reason to send an interrogatory or pull a subpoena, not a fact you put in front of the judge. Verify every figure against the source document, and remember the analysis and the argument are yours.
The Workflow
Set up the analysis and orient Claude
Start a new conversation and give Claude its role, the case context, and the documents you're working with. Upload the disclosure and any supporting records (affidavit, bank statements, tax returns, pay stubs) as files, or paste the text if they're short. Keep all the documents in this one conversation so later steps can reference them.
PromptYou are assisting a family-law attorney representing [CLIENT NAME] in a [divorce / child support / spousal support] matter in [STATE/COUNTY]. I am going to give you the opposing party [OPPOSING PARTY NAME]'s financial disclosures and supporting documents. Here is what I am uploading: [LIST DOCUMENTS, e.g., sworn financial affidavit dated [DATE], 6 months of [BANK] checking statements, 2024 federal tax return, 3 recent pay stubs]. Before analyzing, confirm what you received: list each document, its date or date range, and note anything that is unreadable, missing pages, or ambiguous. Do not analyze yet — just inventory what you have and ask me any clarifying questions.
What you get: A document-by-document inventory with dates and date ranges, a note of any unreadable or missing pages, and a few clarifying questions about scope or context.
Extract income, assets, debts, and expenses into a clean summary
Have Claude pull the raw numbers out of the documents and organize them into a structured financial picture. Asking for a source citation on every figure is what makes this verifiable later — you want to know which document and line each number came from.
PromptUsing only the documents I provided, build a structured financial summary of [OPPOSING PARTY NAME] with four sections: (1) INCOME — wages, self-employment, bonuses, investment, and any other income, monthly and annualized; (2) ASSETS — accounts, real estate, vehicles, retirement, business interests, with stated values; (3) DEBTS/LIABILITIES — each obligation with balance and monthly payment; (4) MONTHLY EXPENSES — itemized as claimed. For every figure, cite the source document and the specific line, statement, or page it came from. If a number appears only on the affidavit with no supporting record, label it 'self-reported, unverified.' If you have to estimate or infer, say so explicitly. Present each section as a clean table.
What you get: Four labeled tables (income, assets, debts, expenses) with a source citation on each figure and clear 'self-reported, unverified' or 'estimated' tags where support is missing.
Cross-check for inconsistencies, omissions, and red flags
Now point Claude at the contradictions. The goal is to compare what the affidavit claims against what the bank and tax records actually show, and to flag the classic signals of underreporting — lifestyle that outruns stated income, accounts that appear in statements but not on the affidavit, large unexplained transfers.
PromptNow cross-check the documents against each other and flag problems. Look for: (1) INCONSISTENCIES — figures that conflict across documents (e.g., affidavit income vs. tax return vs. pay stubs vs. deposits hitting the bank account); (2) OMISSIONS — accounts, income sources, or assets that appear in the bank or tax records but are missing from the affidavit; (3) RED FLAGS — monthly expenses or spending that exceed reported income, large or recurring unexplained transfers or withdrawals, payments to unknown third parties, signs of an undisclosed account or business. For each item, give it a short label, state the specific conflicting figures and where each came from, and rate it High / Medium / Low concern. Be precise about what is a genuine discrepancy versus something that could have an innocent explanation — do not overstate.
What you get: A categorized findings list (inconsistencies, omissions, red flags), each with the conflicting figures, their sources, a concern rating, and a note where an innocent explanation is plausible.
Build a prioritized discovery and deposition list
Convert the findings into action. Claude drafts the follow-up document requests, interrogatories, and the questions you'd actually ask in a deposition, ordered by how much each issue matters to the case.
PromptTurn the findings into a prioritized action plan for [OPPOSING PARTY NAME]. Produce three lists: (1) DISCOVERY REQUESTS — specific documents or records to demand to resolve each open question (e.g., full statements for an account that only partially appears, business records, credit card statements), ordered by priority; (2) INTERROGATORIES — written questions targeting the omissions and inconsistencies; (3) DEPOSITION QUESTIONS — a focused line of questioning for the top 3–5 issues, phrased the way I'd actually ask them, including the natural follow-ups if the witness denies or deflects. Tie each item back to the specific finding it addresses. Flag any issue serious enough that I should consider a forensic accountant or a subpoena to a financial institution.
What you get: Three prioritized lists — discovery requests, interrogatories, and deposition questions — each tied to a specific finding, plus a note on any issue that may warrant a forensic accountant or subpoena.
Verify every figure against the source before you rely on it
Do not file, serve, or cross-examine from Claude's output as-is. Open each source document and confirm every number, date, and citation the summary relies on — OCR misreads, transposed digits, and a statement Claude skimmed are all possible. Confirm the inconsistencies are real and not artifacts of a missing page or a misread balance. The disclosures may also be incomplete in ways Claude can't see; the leads here point you toward what to demand next. The analysis, the legal judgment, and the work product are yours.
What you get: A verified, source-checked picture you can actually act on: confirmed discrepancies, corrected figures, and a discovery plan you've vetted — ready to convert into formal requests and deposition prep.
Example Output
Illustrative example — names, facts, and figures are fictional.
INCONSISTENCY & RED-FLAG SUMMARY — Opposing Party: J. Rivera
(Illustrative sample. Every figure must be verified against the source document.)
HIGH CONCERN
1. Income understated vs. deposits
- Affidavit: $4,200/mo gross wages (Fin. Affidavit, p.2)
- Bank deposits: avg. $7,850/mo across 6 mos (Summit Checking, Jan–Jun)
- Gap of ~$3,650/mo unexplained by pay stubs. Lead, not proof.
2. Undisclosed account
- Two $2,000 transfers to 'Acct ...4471' (Summit Checking, Mar & May)
- No account ending 4471 listed on affidavit. Possible undisclosed account.
MEDIUM CONCERN
3. Expenses exceed reported income
- Claimed monthly expenses $6,900 (Affidavit, p.4) vs. net income ~$3,400/mo.
4. Business interest omitted
- 2024 return shows Schedule C ('Rivera Consulting', gross $41k)
- No business asset or income listed on affidavit.
LOW CONCERN
5. Vehicle value: affidavit lists $8,000; may be understated — verify w/ valuation.
TOP DISCOVERY ASKS: full statements for acct ...4471; 24 mos Summit statements;
all Rivera Consulting books/records; credit card statements for lifestyle check.Tips
- •Upload the actual statements and tax returns, not just the affidavit. Claude can only catch a hidden account or understated income if it can see the records the affidavit is supposed to match.
- •Give Claude more months, not fewer. Six to twelve months of statements reveal recurring transfers and seasonal income that a single month hides; one-off withdrawals look very different across a longer window.
- •Make Claude cite a source for every figure. If a number has no document behind it, that gap is itself a discovery target — and the citations are what let you verify the output fast.
- •Push back when a flag feels thin. Ask 'what innocent explanation could there be?' so you walk into a deposition with the discrepancy and the likely defense already in mind.
A note on confidentiality
Run this only in a no-training environment such as Claude Team or Enterprise, and keep account numbers and other financial PII out of consumer Claude tiers. Opposing-party financial records implicate your duty of confidentiality and competence (ABA Formal Op. 512; Model Rule 1.6) — know your tier's data terms before uploading.
Prompts used in this workflow
Get New Workflows Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — practical workflows, prompts, and guides for everyday practice.