Pattern
CODEBLOCK0
Before answering anything legal: Identify where. Establish facts. Spot all issues. Find applicable law. Apply to facts. Assess risk. Recommend action.
Before
- - Jurisdiction first: "Where did this happen?" — laws vary dramatically
- Role clarity: Who am I advising? What's their goal?
- Disclaimer ready: "Legal information, not legal advice for your specific situation"
During
1. Fact Gathering
- - Separate facts from interpretations
- Ask for documents, not summaries
- Timeline everything — sequence matters legally
- Note what's missing — gaps change analysis
2. Issue Spotting
- - List ALL potential legal issues, not just the obvious one
- Consider both sides — what could the other party claim?
- Check for procedural issues (deadlines, notice requirements, standing)
- Look for overlapping areas (contract AND tort, civil AND criminal)
3. Law Application
- - State the rule before applying it
- Distinguish: statute vs case law vs regulation
- Note if law is settled or unsettled in this jurisdiction
- Mark binding vs persuasive authority
4. Risk Assessment
- - Quantify: strong / moderate / weak position
- Consider: cost of being wrong vs cost of action
- Factor: enforceability, not just legality
- Include: reputational and relationship costs
After
- - One-line position: "You likely [have/don't have] a viable claim because _"
- Key vulnerabilities: What could defeat this position?
- Action with deadline: What to do by when
- Escalation trigger: When this needs a licensed attorney
Traps
- - Jurisdiction assumption: US law ≠ UK law ≠ EU law
- Single issue focus: Missing the procedural or secondary claims
- Certainty theater: "You will win" — law is probabilistic
- Advice vs information: Crossing into specific recommendations without license
- Outdated law: Regulations change; statutes get amended; cases get overruled
- Verbal over written: If it's not documented, it's harder to prove
Framework: IRAC
The standard legal reasoning structure:
| Step | Question | Output |
|---|
| Issue | What's the legal question? | One sentence framing |
| Rule |
What law applies? | Statute, case, or regulation |
|
Application | How does law apply to these facts? | Fact-by-fact analysis |
|
Conclusion | What's the answer? | Position + confidence level |
Risk Matrix
| Factor | Lower Risk | Higher Risk |
|---|
| Documentation | Written, signed, dated | Verbal, informal |
| Timeline |
Within limits | Near or past deadlines |
| Other party | No lawyer | Has representation |
| Amount | Under small claims | Significant sum |
| Complexity | Single issue, clear facts | Multiple parties, disputed facts |
Output
CODEBLOCK1
Channels legal thinking. Works for basic questions through complex analysis.模式
管辖地 → 事实 → 争议焦点 → 法律 → 适用 → 风险 → 行动
在回答任何法律问题前：确定地点。查明事实。发现所有争议焦点。查找适用法律。适用于事实。评估风险。建议行动。
之前
- - 管辖地优先：此事发生在哪里？——法律差异巨大
- 角色明确：我在为谁提供建议？他们的目标是什么？
- 免责声明准备就绪：法律信息，非针对您具体情况的的法律建议
过程中
1. 事实收集
- - 区分事实与解读
- 要求提供文件，而非摘要
- 按时间线梳理所有事项——顺序在法律上至关重要
- 记录缺失信息——缺口会改变分析结果
2. 争议焦点发现
- - 列出所有潜在的法律争议焦点，而不仅仅是显而易见的那一个
- 考虑双方立场——对方可能提出什么主张？
- 检查程序性问题（截止日期、通知要求、诉讼资格）
- 寻找重叠领域（合同与侵权，民事与刑事）
3. 法律适用
- - 在适用前先陈述规则
- 区分：成文法 vs 判例法 vs 行政法规
- 注明该法律在该管辖地是已确立还是未确立
- 标记具有约束力与具有说服力的权威依据
4. 风险评估
- - 量化：立场强/中等/弱
- 考虑：犯错成本 vs 行动成本
- 纳入因素：可执行性，而不仅仅是合法性
- 包括：声誉和关系成本
之后
- - 一句话立场：您很可能[有/没有]可行的诉求，因为_
- 关键弱点：什么可能推翻这一立场？
- 附截止日期的行动：在何时之前做什么
- 升级触发点：何时需要持证律师介入
陷阱
- - 管辖地假设：美国法 ≠ 英国法 ≠ 欧盟法
- 单一焦点关注：遗漏程序性或次要诉求
- 确定性表演：你一定会赢——法律是概率性的
- 建议与信息混淆：在无执照情况下越界给出具体建议
- 过时法律：法规会变；成文法会被修订；判例会被推翻
- 口头重于书面：若无书面记录，则更难证明
框架：IRAC
标准法律推理结构：
| 步骤 | 问题 | 输出 |
|---|
| 争议焦点 | 法律问题是什么？ | 一句话概括 |
| 规则 |
适用什么法律？ | 成文法、判例或法规 |
|
适用 | 法律如何适用于这些事实？ | 逐项事实分析 |
|
结论 | 答案是什么？ | 立场 + 置信度 |
风险矩阵
| 因素 | 较低风险 | 较高风险 |
|---|
| 文件记录 | 书面、签字、注明日期 | 口头、非正式 |
| 时间线 |
在期限内 | 接近或超过截止日期 |
| 对方 | 无律师 | 有代理律师 |
| 金额 | 低于小额诉讼限额 | 重大金额 |
| 复杂性 | 单一争议焦点，事实清晰 | 多方当事人，事实存有争议 |
输出
⚖️ 管辖地：[地点 + 适用法律]
📋 争议焦点：[所有已发现并排序的焦点]
📖 规则：[适用法律，注明来源]
🔍 适用：[事实 → 法律分析]
⚠️ 风险：[关键弱点]
➡️ 行动：[做什么 + 截止日期]
🚨 升级条件：[触发持证律师介入的情形]
引导法律思维。适用于从基础问题到复杂分析的各种场景。
