Build a Motion or Opposition Brief From the Record

Go from pleadings, declarations, transcripts and exhibits to a pin-cited record map, an argument outline that anticipates the other side, and draft brief sections with authority placeholders that are filled only after verification.

The Workflow

1. 1

   Frame the motion and load the record

   Tell Claude which side you are on, the motion, the relief sought, the standard (as you have researched it), and the dates. Paste the record excerpts in labeled document tags using the same exhibit labels you will use in the brief.

   PromptCopy

   I represent [PARTY], the [MOVING / OPPOSING] party, on a [MOTION TYPE] in [CASE, COURT]. The relief sought is [RELIEF]. The standard, as I have researched it, is: [STATE THE STANDARD IN YOUR OWN WORDS, citing APPLICABLE RULE]. The filing deadline is [DATE] and the hearing is [DATE].
   
   The elements or issues the motion turns on are:
   1. [ELEMENT OR ISSUE]
   2. [ELEMENT OR ISSUE]
   3. [ADD AS NEEDED]
   
   Record excerpts follow. Use these labels in every cite.
   
   <document title="Ex. A: [DESCRIPTION]">
   [PASTE]
   </document>
   
   <document title="[WITNESS] Dep. (page:line numbering intact)">
   [PASTE]
   </document>
   
   <document title="[DECLARANT] Decl. (paragraph numbers intact)">
   [PASTE]
   </document>
   
   <document title="Complaint / Answer">
   [PASTE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS]
   </document>
   
   List each document with its label, a one-line description and its cite format (e.g., Ex. A at 4; Smith Dep. 12:3–15; Jones Decl. ¶ 7). Flag anything that looks incomplete. Do not analyze yet.

   What you get: An inventory and a cite convention for each source. Fix any labels now so the record map and brief use the same ones.

2. 2

   Build the record map

   For each element or issue, have Claude pull every relevant fact from the record with a pin cite, including facts that hurt you. The gaps list is the most important part: it shows what the argument needs that the record does not supply.

   PromptCopy

   For each element or issue I listed, build a record map with these columns:
   
   Fact (one sentence) | Pin cite (using the labels above) | Quote (the exact supporting language) | Helps / hurts [OUR SIDE] | Disputed? (is there contrary evidence in what I pasted; cite it)
   
   Rules:
   - Every fact must have a pin cite and a quote from the pasted record. No fact without a source.
   - Include facts that hurt our position. List them under the element they affect.
   - Do not characterize testimony beyond what it says. If a witness hedged, keep the hedge.
   
   Then, under a heading "Record gaps", list for each element the facts our argument would need that the record does not establish, and what kind of evidence might supply them (a declaration, a document, further testimony).

   What you get: A pin-cited fact table organized by element, with adverse facts and a gaps list. Gaps either change the argument or become a to-do list (a supplemental declaration, an exhibit you forgot to paste).

3. 3

   Outline the argument and stress-test it

   Build point headings and sub-arguments with record cites under each, then have Claude argue the other side. This is the argument-strengthener approach applied to the record you mapped.

   PromptCopy

   Using the record map, draft an argument outline for our [MOTION / OPPOSITION].
   
   Format:
   I. [Point heading as a complete sentence stating the conclusion]
      A. [Sub-argument]
         - Supporting fact, with pin cite
         - [AUTHORITY NEEDED: describe the legal proposition this point requires]
   
   Then add a section "Opposing arguments" listing the strongest arguments the other side will make on each point, the record facts they will cite (with pin cites), and a suggested response grounded in the record. Rank the opposing arguments by how much damage they could do.
   
   Rules: do not name any case, statute or rule from memory. Describe each needed legal proposition in an [AUTHORITY NEEDED] placeholder so I can research it. Flag any point where the record support is thin.

   What you get: An outline you can rearrange, with a research list built in: every [AUTHORITY NEEDED] placeholder is a proposition to research. The opposing-arguments section often shows a point is better dropped than defended.

4. 4

   Draft the statement of facts and argument sections

   Have Claude draft the statement of facts using only record-cited facts, and argument sections that keep the authority placeholders in place. Give it a page or word budget so the draft is close to the court's limit.

   PromptCopy

   Draft (1) the statement of facts and (2) argument sections I.A through [LAST SECTION] from the outline.
   
   Statement of facts: use only facts from the record map, each sentence followed by its pin cite in the form I gave you. Present facts accurately, including material adverse facts that the other side will raise, framed fairly. Do not argue in the facts section.
   
   Argument: follow the outline. Keep every [AUTHORITY NEEDED: ...] placeholder in the text exactly where the authority will go. Do not insert any case name, citation, quotation from a case, or statutory language unless it appears in a document I pasted.
   
   Target length: about [N] words total, consistent with a [PAGE / WORD] limit of [LIMIT] under [APPLICABLE RULE]. Write in [OUR HOUSE STYLE: e.g., short paragraphs, conclusion-first headings]. After the draft, list every factual sentence you were unsure how to cite.

   What you get: A full draft with record cites throughout and visible authority placeholders. Read the statement of facts against the record map; it should contain nothing the map does not.

5. 5

   Run the verified-authority gate

   Research each [AUTHORITY NEEDED] proposition in a legal research database, read the authority, confirm it is still good law, and only then replace the placeholder. Use the Legal Research and Cite-Check workflow for this step. Claude can help you organize the research and check that a quoted passage actually appears in an opinion you paste, but it is not the source of the citation.

   What you get: Every placeholder replaced with an authority you have read and verified, or the point revised or dropped. No citation enters the brief from Claude's memory.

6. 6

   Run the local-rules and filing checklist

   Have Claude build a checklist of format and filing requirements as placeholders, then confirm each against the court's current local rules, the judge's standing orders and any AI-disclosure or certification requirement that applies.

   PromptCopy

   Build a pre-filing checklist for this [MOTION / OPPOSITION] in [COURT], before Judge [NAME]. List each item as a question with a blank for the answer and the source I should check, using [APPLICABLE RULE] or [STANDING ORDER] as placeholders. Do not state what any rule requires; I will confirm each item.
   
   Cover: page or word limits and whether the tables count; caption and formatting (font, spacing, margins); table of contents and table of authorities; separate statement of facts or statement of undisputed facts requirements; meet-and-confer certification; proposed order; exhibit and declaration formatting; courtesy copies; hearing and notice requirements; any certification or disclosure of AI use; and the filing and service deadline.
   
   Then check the current draft against the items you can assess from the text (length, headings, presence of a table of contents) and report what is missing.

   What you get: A checklist with sources to confirm. Judges' standing orders change; check the current version on the court's website before filing.

Example Output

Illustrative example — names, facts, and figures are fictional.

RECORD MAP EXCERPT (ILLUSTRATIVE / FICTIONAL)
Matter: Reyes v. Calloway Freight Lines. We represent the defendant, opposing plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

ELEMENT 2: Defendant knew of the brake defect before the trip.

Fact | Pin cite | Quote | Helps / hurts | Disputed?
1. The pre-trip inspection form was marked "OK" for brakes. | Ex. C at 1 | "Brakes: OK (initialed T.M.)" | Helps | Yes: Pratt Dep. 33:4–9 ("the form gets initialed before anyone looks")
2. A mechanic emailed about "soft brakes" on the unit two days earlier. | Ex. F at 2 | "Unit 418 brakes feel soft, need to look at it" | Hurts | No
3. The dispatcher testified she did not see that email before dispatch. | Lowe Dep. 21:12–18 | "I didn't open it until after the accident." | Helps | Partly: Ex. F at 1 (header shows it was sent to the dispatch group inbox)

RECORD GAPS (Element 2)
- No evidence of when the dispatch inbox was checked on the trip date. Possible source: a declaration from the IT administrator on read receipts or access logs.

ARGUMENT OUTLINE EXCERPT
I. A genuine dispute of material fact exists on whether Calloway knew of the defect before dispatch.
   A. The only witness with dispatch authority testified she had not read the mechanic's email. (Lowe Dep. 21:12–18)
      [AUTHORITY NEEDED: standard for imputing an employee's knowledge to the employer in [JURISDICTION]]
   Opposing argument (ranked 1): the email went to a shared inbox, so knowledge is imputed regardless (Ex. F at 1). Suggested response: [depends on the imputation standard; research before responding].

DRAFT for attorney review. No authority has been supplied; every placeholder must be filled through verified research.

Tips

• •State the standard in your own words in step 1. Claude should apply the standard you researched, not one it recalls, and writing it out forces you to confirm it early.
• •Include the adverse facts in the record map. The other side will cite them, and a statement of facts that ignores them costs credibility with the court.
• •Use the exact exhibit and transcript labels you will file with. Renaming exhibits after the draft is written is where cite errors creep in.
• •Treat every [AUTHORITY NEEDED] placeholder as a research assignment. If research does not support the proposition, revise or drop the point rather than softening the language.
• •Before filing, ask Claude to list every record cite in the final brief and check each one against the record map; then check the map items against the exhibits yourself.

Frequently Asked Questions

Prompts used in this workflow

Related Reading

• Run Legal Research and Verify Every Citation
• Can Claude Check If a Case Is Still Good Law? No, Not Alone
• AI Disclosure Requirements for Lawyers: What Courts Require in 2026
• Litigation Practice