From precedent libraries to prompts: The next step for legal drafting

Almost every lawyer I know has a Precedent Library, be it letters, documents or draft Orders. Precedent banks are a great resource, whether it is centralised within the firm or team, or the lawyer’s own. They are an undeniably valuable resource to a lawyer and their firm. They enable lawyers to ensure certain information is relayed to a client or a document drafted without having to repeatedly dictate or type the same thing.

What many lawyers don’t have, but I am certain will in years to come, is a bank of prompts for automated legal drafting. A prompt (for those not yet in the know) is a set of instructions to AI. It is a command, question or description that you give to AI to generate a specific output, such as a letter, image or code. Think of it as giving instructions to a trainee solicitor on their first day in the family team. You need to explain what you want in the most basic way and give clear and concise instructions. The more detailed you are with a prompt, the better the output. These can be quite lengthy, and may include things that should be taken as a given, such as not to Americanise words.

I have recently left private practice to take up a role with a Legal Tech company, LEAP, specialising in case management software for law firms. As Head of I have the remit to help shape the software to better support family lawyers. This has been a huge change, but has allowed me to explore in greater detail their precedent letters. When I left practice, I could not take 18 years' worth of precedents with me, and I wasn’t prepared to commit intellectual property theft over a precedent bank!

How legal drafting is evolving in UK law firms

Precedent libraries play a key role in my new role, and there is a bank of precedent letters and documents available to lawyers. They can be vital for a lawyer to extract crucial case information from template letters. I have started to adapt these and develop new precedents, such as a letter of instruction to an Actuary based on the precedent provided in the second report. This not only pulls through the client’s details, and that of the opposition and their lawyer, but LEAP includes a Word Add-in that enables a series of questions to be answered, which then alters the remainder of the precedent letter. For example, whether the Actuary’s report is being ordered or is by agreement. This is more than just a template, and hopefully makes the lawyer’s job quicker and easier.

After all, who actually enjoys drafting letters of instructions? But what if there were a way for the technology to examine the file and find those answers itself? This is where a well-written prompt could take over from precedents.

At the point I joined LEAP, I had never heard of a prompt, let alone of AI in legal drafting. I had used ChatGPT for the odd question. In fact, my first-ever ChatGPT question was asking it to provide the correct reading order for John le Carré’s books featuring George Smiley. The idea of giving AI a set of instructions to create a letter of instruction would have been so daunting that it would have been easier to just type the letter myself. However, AI can read a matter, and in theory could answer the questions posed to the lawyer drafting the letter, such as the values and types of the parties’ pension. This is one way a precedent could be transformed into a prompt.

What happens to a legal precedent once it’s transformed into a prompt?

A prompt could be created and saved for future use, giving AI the set of rules to create that letter of instruction. This could include directing it to consider the guidance from the Pensions Advisory Group, the relevant Practice Direction, and even the specific Order which gave the direction for the report. Further instructions could be given as to formatting, language, and tone. Once perfected, the prompt could be run on a matter (thus keeping the data secure within the system) and the letter of instruction produced for immediate checking.

Another example of where a prompt could be more efficient than a precedent is a brief to counsel. Much of the information contained in a brief could be detailed in a precedent, such as the parties’ details, names and ages of the children. A prompt could go one step further, it could analyse the information in a matter, summarise the child’s arrangements, or the current issues in the case. This wouldn’t necessarily create a finished brief, but a working draft, similar to the one the hypothetical trainee may produce on their first day in the family team. Instead of the trainee taking an hour to produce this draft, AI could do it in a matter of seconds.

Whether lawyers like it, Artificial Intelligence is going to change how we practice, so it’s only fair to ask ourselves There is a saying I’ve heard a lot in the last few weeks, “AI won’t replace lawyers, but a lawyer using AI will”. Replacing a precedent with a prompt is one way to embrace AI, whilst still retaining control of the instructions and output.

Precedents didn’t replace lawyers, so why should prompts?

About the author

With over 20 years’ experience in Family Law, including as a former Partner at Brethertons LLP, Katie Phillips brings deep expertise in complex divorce, financial remedy, and children law cases. As Head of Family Law at LEAP Legal Software, she combines her practical legal experience with a passion for innovation, helping family law firms harness technology to work smarter, enhance client care, and navigate the evolving justice system.