Prompt
Legal AI prompts: Review / Redline
25 prompts you can paste straight into HAQQ or any other assistant. Every one is written out in full - open it, copy it, change the bracketed parts.
Legal Invoice Review ChecklistChecklistStandardLegal Ops / Billing
Create an invoice review checklist for [Company] legal department to review outside counsel invoices. Include rate compliance, task code accuracy, block billing violations, excessive charges, guideline compliance, and approval workflow steps.
Open Source Compliance ReviewReportAdvancedIP / Licensing
Conduct an open source license compliance review for [Company's] software product. Identify all open source components, classify license types (permissive, copyleft), assess compatibility, flag compliance risks, and recommend remediation steps.
Full Contract Risk ReviewReportAdvancedCorporate / Commercial
Review the following contract: [PASTE CONTRACT TEXT OR ATTACH FILE]. Identify legal risks, unclear clauses, missing protections, and terms that may expose [COMPANY NAME] to financial or legal liability. Provide a structured report with these sections: - High risk clauses - Unclear or ambiguous language - Missing protections for [COMPANY NAME] - Clauses that strongly favor the other party - Suggested revisions in plain English End with a short summary of the top risks.
Vendor Agreement Red Flag ScanReportAdvancedCorporate / Commercial
Analyze this vendor agreement: [PASTE AGREEMENT]. Focus on payment terms, liability limits, termination conditions, intellectual property ownership, and service obligations. Explain: - Clauses that may create financial exposure - Terms that restrict flexibility or exit options - Any unusual or one sided conditions Then rewrite the risky clauses with safer alternatives suitable for [COMPANY NAME].
NDA Strength CheckReportStandardCorporate / Commercial
Evaluate this Non Disclosure Agreement: [PASTE NDA]. Check whether the agreement properly protects confidential information for [COMPANY NAME]. Review the following areas: - Definition of confidential information - Duration of confidentiality obligations - Permitted disclosures - Remedies for breach Identify weaknesses and rewrite the NDA clauses so the protection is stronger and clearer.
Employment Contract Compliance ReviewReportAdvancedEmployment
Review this employment contract for legal and operational issues: [PASTE CONTRACT]. Check the following: - Non compete and non solicitation clauses - Intellectual property ownership - Termination terms and notice periods - Compensation structure and obligations Flag anything that may cause legal disputes and propose improved wording.
Agreement / Legal Draft ReviewReportAdvancedCorporate / Commercial
Review the following agreement and identify legal risks, tax implications, and clauses that may create compliance issues.
Arbitration Clause ComparisonReportAdvancedArbitration
Compare arbitration clauses from [ICC, LCIA, SIAC, DIFC-LCIA, DIAC] rules. Analyze seat, language, number of arbitrators, emergency arbitrator provisions, expedited procedures, costs, and enforceability considerations for a [type of dispute] in [region].
Contract Risk MatrixReportAdvancedCorporate / Commercial
Analyze the attached contract and create a risk matrix categorizing each clause by risk level (low/medium/high/critical). For each risk, provide the clause reference, risk description, potential impact, likelihood, and recommended mitigation action.
Review My LeaseMemoStandardHousing & Tenancy
Review this residential lease and explain in plain language: rent and increases, deposit, term, renewal, repairs, who pays utilities, pets, subletting and termination. Flag any unusual or unfavorable clauses for the tenant.
Severance ReviewMemoAdvancedEmployee Rights
Review this severance agreement and explain in plain language: payout, benefits continuation, release of claims, non-compete, non-solicit, references, and any clawback. Flag terms I should negotiate.
Non-Compete ReviewMemoAdvancedEmployee Rights
Review this non-compete clause and tell me whether it is likely enforceable in [jurisdiction]. Address scope, geography, duration, consideration and possible carve-outs to negotiate.
Purchase Agreement ReviewMemoAdvancedReal Estate (Personal)
Review this home purchase agreement for [address] at price [amount]. Explain contingencies, financing, inspection, closing date, title, repairs and what protects me as buyer.
Marital Balance Sheet (Separate vs Marital)ReportAdvancedFamily Law
Build a marital balance sheet from the asset and debt list below. Produce one table with columns: item, current value, debt against it, net equity, title/ownership, acquisition date, and a characterization (separate / marital / mixed) with a one-line tracing rationale. Total the marital column and the separate column. Then list the items where characterization is uncertain and what document would resolve each. Asset and debt list: [PASTE LIST]. Jurisdiction and legal family (equitable distribution / community property / civil-law regime): [JURISDICTION]. Note any characterization rule as [CONFIRM LOCALLY]. Draft for attorney review only.
Bank-Statement Flow-of-Funds AnalysisReportExpertFamily Law
Analyze the bank/credit statements below for a divorce financial review. Produce: (1) a categorized spending summary by month; (2) a recurring-income vs recurring-expense view; (3) a lifestyle snapshot (estimated monthly run-rate); and (4) a flag list of items to investigate — large or round-number transfers, payments to unknown payees, cash withdrawals above [THRESHOLD], and any drop in account balance not explained by listed expenses. Cite the statement date and line for every flagged item. Frame flags as questions to investigate, not conclusions of wrongdoing. Statements: [PASTE OR DESCRIBE]. Draft for attorney review only; this is not a forensic accounting opinion.
Two-Affidavit Variance PassMemoExpertFamily Law
Compare the two financial affidavits below (my client's and the opposing party's) and produce a reconciliation memo. List: (1) every asset or account that appears on one affidavit but not the other; (2) every value that differs by more than [PERCENT]%; (3) any stated income that does not square with the stated lifestyle or listed deposits; and (4) expense totals that do not add up. For each item, note which document or discovery request would resolve it. Present this as preparation for mediation/cross-examination, not as accusation. Affidavits: [PASTE BOTH]. Draft for attorney review only.
Five-Pass Contract Review for In-House CounselReportExpertCorporate / Commercial
Review the attached contract in five passes, labeling each section of your output by pass number. Pass 1: summarize the deal, the parties, the term, and every date or deadline in the document. Pass 2: go clause by clause and list each party's obligations. Pass 3: rate each risk you find as low/medium/high/critical, with the clause reference and a proposed redline. Pass 4: check the contract against [attached playbook, or 'our standard positions below'] and flag every deviation. Pass 5: close with a one-paragraph executive summary and a go/no-go recommendation. Contract: [PASTE]. Playbook or standard positions: [PASTE OR DESCRIBE].
Contract Comparison Diff for Redline ReviewReportAdvancedCorporate / M&A
Compare Version A and Version B of the attached contract and produce a diff limited to substantive changes — ignore formatting, renumbering, and typo fixes. For each substantive change, state which party it favors, whether it is a market-standard adjustment or an outlier, and whether it needs an escalation flag before we accept it. Close with a one-line summary of whether, on balance, Version B is more or less favorable to [our side] than Version A. Version A: [PASTE]. Version B: [PASTE].
Authority Verification: Does the Citation Support the Proposition?ReportExpertDisputes / Litigation
Act as a verification reviewer. For every authority cited in the passage below, check one thing only: whether the source actually supports the proposition it is cited for. Do not assess whether the argument is persuasive. If you cannot open or confirm a source, say so plainly and mark it Unverified — never infer the content of a case, statute or regulation you have not read. Return: (1) Citation Table — one row per authority: Citation | Proposition it is cited for | Verdict (Supports / Partially supports / Does not support / Unverified); (2) Overstatements — where the proposition goes further than the source, quoting the source language beside the claim; (3) Wrong-Level Errors — dicta cited as holding, a dissent or minority view cited as the rule, a repealed or superseded provision, a first-instance decision presented as settled law; (4) Miscitations — wrong party, year, section, court or reporter, and pin cites that do not point to the passage relied on; (5) Currency Check — anything that may have been overturned, amended, distinguished or restricted since, flagged for manual confirmation together with the exact search a human should run; (6) Unsupported Assertions — legal propositions in the text carrying no citation at all; (7) Fix List — for each problem, the smallest change that repairs it (soften the claim, re-pin the cite, substitute authority, delete the sentence); (8) Sign-Off Verdict — safe to file, needs work, or do not file, in one line with the deciding reason. Passage: [PASTE].
Pre-Send Self-Audit Before the Draft Leaves the OfficeChecklistExpertLegal Ops / Billing
Act as the last reviewer before this document leaves the firm. Scope: the draft below, intended for [RECIPIENT], for the purpose of [PURPOSE], under the retainer described as [SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT], due [DATE]. Audit it as though you will personally answer for anything that goes wrong. Return: (1) Blocking Defects — anything that must be fixed before it goes out, each with the exact location in the draft and the corrected wording; (2) Client-Facing Errors — wrong names, dates, amounts or entity forms, unfilled placeholders and square brackets, comments or tracked changes left in, and any text carried over from another matter or client; (3) Internal Consistency — defined terms used before they are defined or never used at all, cross-references pointing at the wrong clause, broken numbering, and figures that differ between the body, the schedules and the cover email; (4) Scope and Instruction Fit — where the draft goes beyond what was asked or fails to answer what was asked, mapped against [SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT]; (5) Unstated Assumptions — assumptions the document relies on but does not disclose, with the sentence that would disclose each one; (6) Tone and Exposure — anything that overpromises, guarantees an outcome, gives advice outside the retainer, or reads as a conclusion where it should read as an option; (7) Confidentiality Check — third-party names, privileged or without-prejudice material, and document metadata to strip before sending; (8) Ship Decision — Send, Send after the numbered fixes above, or Do Not Send, in one line with the reason. Draft: [PASTE].
Fabrication Check on an AI-Assisted DraftChecklistAdvancedLegal Ops / Billing
Act as a verification reviewer for a document that was drafted with AI assistance. Scope: the draft below and the source materials I supply — treat those sources as the only permissible basis for any factual, numerical or legal statement in the draft. Do not fill gaps from your own knowledge; an unsupported statement is a finding, not something for you to justify. Return: (1) Source Map — every factual and legal assertion in the draft, matched to the source and line that supports it; (2) Unsourced Assertions — statements with no support anywhere in the materials, quoted verbatim with their location in the draft; (3) Suspected Fabrications — citations, case names, quotes, figures, dates, party names or document references that appear nowhere in the sources, listed verbatim and flagged as high priority; (4) Quote Integrity — every quotation checked word for word against the source, with any drift shown side by side; (5) Number Integrity — every figure, date, deadline, percentage and calculation traced to its source, with a note where the arithmetic does not reconcile; (6) Silent Drift — passages where the draft states a source more strongly, more broadly or more favourably than the source states itself; (7) Verification Queue — what a human must check manually, ordered by damage if wrong, with the specific check for each item; (8) Verdict — the count of unsourced and suspected-fabricated items and whether the draft may be circulated as it stands. Sources: [PASTE]. Draft: [PASTE].
GCC Cross-Border Dispute Resolution Clause Audit: Seat, Venue and EnforceabilityReportEnterpriseArbitration
Act as arbitration counsel auditing the dispute-resolution provisions of [AGREEMENT] in a cross-border transaction between [PARTY A, jurisdiction] and [PARTY B, jurisdiction], performed in [COUNTRY], with the counterparty's assets likely located in [ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTIONS]. Scope: the clauses pasted below only. Cite the rule, article or institutional provision behind each conclusion; where you cannot cite it, mark it To Be Confirmed rather than asserting it. Return: (1) Clause Anatomy — what the clause actually provides: governing law of the contract, legal seat, hearing venue, institution and rules, number and method of appointment of arbitrators, language of the proceedings, and any tiered pre-conditions such as negotiation or mediation; (2) Seat versus Venue Diagnosis — whether the drafting confuses the legal seat with the hearing venue, which curial law that leaves supervising the arbitration, which courts would hear a challenge, and the exact replacement wording; (3) Language of Proceedings — whether it is specified, what applies by default if it is not, and the practical consequence where evidence exists in both Arabic and English (translation cost, bilingual tribunal, the evidentiary record); (4) Pathology Check — asymmetric or optional clauses, floating or unspecified seat, a named institution paired with another body's rules, an institution that no longer exists under that name, unworkable time limits, and conflicts with the jurisdiction or governing-law clauses elsewhere in the agreement; (5) Enforcement Path — for each of [ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTIONS], the recognition route and the formalities to confirm, including whether the local court requires an Arabic translation of the award and of the arbitration agreement; (6) Arbitrability and Authority — subject matter that may not be arbitrable locally, and local requirements on who has authority to bind a company to arbitration, flagged for confirmation; (7) Redraft — a clean replacement clause, with an Arabic counterpart if the agreement is bilingual; (8) Residual Risks and Local Counsel Questions. Clauses: [PASTE].
Takaful Policy Wording ReviewReportExpertIslamic Finance & Sharia
Act as insurance counsel reviewing the policy wording of a takaful product offered by [OPERATOR] in [COUNTRY], operating on a [wakala / mudaraba / hybrid] model, covering [RISKS COVERED] for [PARTICIPANT TYPE]. Paste or describe the wording. A takaful is a mutual risk-sharing fund run by an operator for a fee — the participants' fund and the operator's own account are separate pools, and most drafting failures come from wording that quietly merges them. Test for that throughout. Do not state a Sharia standard or a regulatory requirement you cannot attribute to a named source; mark it To Be Confirmed. Return: (1) Model Statement — how this wording actually describes the operator's role and remuneration, and whether that matches the model claimed on the cover page; (2) Fund Separation Audit — every clause that touches the participants' fund, checked for whether contributions, claims, reserves, investment returns and expenses stay on the correct side of the line; (3) Surplus Distribution — how any underwriting surplus is calculated, who is entitled to it, when it is paid, and whether the operator can take a share of it on this model; (4) Deficit and Qard — what happens if the fund cannot meet claims, whether the operator lends interest-free to the fund, and how that loan is repaid; (5) Coverage and Exclusions Review — ambiguous grants, exclusions that swallow the cover, conditions precedent and notification periods, each with a suggested rewrite; (6) Sharia Risk Register — features commonly objected to (guaranteed returns to participants, investment of the fund in non-compliant assets, penalty charges, operator fee tied to surplus rather than to service), each with the fix; (7) Consumer Clarity Pass — the three places a participant would most likely misunderstand what they bought, and plain wording for each; (8) Findings Table and Next Steps — issue, clause reference, severity, proposed wording, and who signs it off. This is a review aid for a qualified practitioner, not legal or Sharia advice.
Converting a Conventional Facility to a Sharia-Compliant StructureReportExpertIslamic Finance & Sharia
Act as Islamic finance counsel assessing whether an existing conventional facility can be restructured on Sharia-compliant terms. Paste or describe the facility: [TYPE, LENDER, BORROWER, PRINCIPAL, INTEREST BASIS, FEES, TENOR, SECURITY, GOVERNING LAW, COUNTRY OF PERFORMANCE]. The reason for the request is [INVESTOR MANDATE / CUSTOMER REQUEST / LISTING OR FUND REQUIREMENT / ACQUISITION BY AN ISLAMIC INSTITUTION]. Do not simply rename the interest — say honestly which features can be restructured, which have to be removed, and where the economics genuinely change for one side. Do not state a Sharia standard or a local-law rule you cannot attribute to a named source; mark it To Be Confirmed and refer it to the Sharia Supervisory Board. Return: (1) Non-Compliance Findings — clause by clause, what makes this facility non-compliant, ranked by how central it is (interest on money, penalty interest, sale of debt, uncertainty in price or delivery, use of proceeds, guaranteed return); (2) Candidate Structures — the two or three compliant structures that could carry these economics, with the trade-off of each in plain terms; (3) Recommended Structure — the one you would take forward, the transaction steps it requires, and the new documents needed; (4) Economic Delta — where the restructured deal is genuinely worse or better for each side (timing of cash flows, prepayment, late payment, tax, security enforcement), stated numerically where the inputs allow and flagged as an assumption where they do not; (5) Documents to Amend or Replace — a table of every existing document, whether it is amended, replaced or discharged, and in what order so security is never left unperfected; (6) Use of Proceeds and Business Screen — whether the borrower's activities and the intended use would themselves pass a compliance screen, and what a mixed-activity borrower has to change; (7) Approvals and Timing — Sharia board, credit committee, regulator, security registries and any listing or fund requirement, sequenced with lead times; (8) Recommendation — proceed, restructure partially, or decline, with the reason and the questions for the Sharia Supervisory Board. This is an analysis aid for a qualified practitioner, not legal, tax or Sharia advice.
Arabic–English Legal Translation QA and Terminology TableReportExpertCorporate / Commercial
Act as a bilingual reviewing lawyer checking a legal translation before it is relied on. Paste the source and the translation, and state the direction [Arabic to English / English to Arabic], the document type [CONTRACT / JUDGMENT / STATUTE / PLEADING / CORPORATE DOCUMENT], and what it will be used for [SIGNATURE / FILING IN COURT / REGULATORY SUBMISSION / CLIENT ADVICE]. Review it as a lawyer, not as a linguist: the question is whether the translated text creates the same legal effect, not whether it reads well. Where a term has no true equivalent across the two systems, say so and give the options rather than picking a comfortable word. Return: (1) Verdict — fit to rely on, fit after the listed fixes, or not fit, in one line with the reason; (2) Meaning-Changing Errors — every place the translation alters an obligation, a right, a deadline, a condition, a party or an amount, quoted in both languages with the corrected rendering; (3) Legal-Effect Divergences — terms of art that do not map cleanly between a common-law source and an Arabic civil-law reader, or the reverse (consideration, trust, estoppel, best efforts, indemnify and hold harmless, without prejudice, وقف التنفيذ, حق الامتياز, التعويض الاتفاقي), each with the options and the one you recommend for this document; (4) Terminology Table — every defined and recurring term, its rendering in both languages, and a note where the translation used more than one rendering for the same term; (5) Numbers, Dates and Names — figures in words and digits, currencies, Hijri and Gregorian dates, party and entity names, transliteration consistency, and anything that must match an official register exactly; (6) Structure and Omissions — clauses, cross-references, schedules, headings or signature blocks that are missing, reordered or silently merged; (7) Formal Requirements — whether the intended use requires a sworn or licensed translator, a stamp, notarisation or legalisation, flagged as a question for the receiving authority; (8) Fix List — a numbered table of every change, ordered by severity, ready to hand to the translator. This is a review aid for a qualified practitioner and does not replace a certified translation where one is required.