Legal & Compliance

Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-12

Turn a rambling client intake call into a structured summary a lawyer can triage in two minutes

Converts raw intake notes or a call transcript into a structured client-matter summary with urgency flags and missing-information gaps clearly marked, so a lawyer's first read is triage-ready instead of a re-transcription exercise.

ChatGPT (GPT-5.1)4 fillable variables
Scope for this category: Drafting, summarizing and organizing support only — every prompt states plainly that output is not legal advice and needs review by a qualified lawyer before being relied on or sent externally.

The prompt

Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.

Structure the intake notes below into a client-matter summary a lawyer can triage quickly — organize what was said, do not add legal characterization to it.

RAW INTAKE NOTES OR CALL TRANSCRIPT
Client called about a landlord who kept the security deposit and won't respond to calls; mentioned a roommate also affected; wants deposit back before moving to new apartment next month.

INTAKE PURPOSE
First intake call for a prospective new client, deciding whether the firm should take the matter.

PRACTICE AREA THIS LIKELY FALLS UNDER
Residential landlord-tenant, security deposit dispute.

ANY STATED DEADLINE OR TIME-SENSITIVE EVENT
Client is moving in 3 weeks and wants this resolved before then; unsure if there's a legal filing deadline.

WHAT TO EXTRACT
Parties involved and their relationship to each other and to the client, stated plainly as given. The client's stated goal — what outcome they said they want, in their own words as closely as possible, since what a client asks for and what they legally need are sometimes different things a lawyer needs to notice on their own, not have pre-interpreted for them. A timeline of events as the client described them (not a formal chronology, just organized in the order the client experienced them). Any documents the client mentioned having or needing to find. Any deadline or urgency the client mentioned, flagged prominently. Any conflict-of-interest flags — names of other parties, companies, or individuals mentioned that the firm might need to check against existing clients or matters, listed plainly for a conflicts check, not assessed by you.

WHAT NOT TO DO
Do not characterize the strength of the client's position, suggest what legal claims might apply, or speculate about likely outcomes — this is an intake organization exercise, and a lawyer forming that judgment needs to do so directly from the facts, not from your pre-filtered read of them. Do not fill in gaps in the notes with plausible assumptions about what the client "probably meant" — if something is unclear or contradictory in the notes, flag it as a clarifying question to ask the client, rather than resolving the ambiguity yourself.

OUTPUT FORMAT
1. Parties and relationships.
2. Client's stated goal, in their own words where possible.
3. Timeline as experienced by the client.
4. Documents mentioned (have / need to find).
5. Urgency flags.
6. Names to run through conflicts check.
7. Open clarifying questions for the client.
8. A closing line noting this is an intake organization draft only, not a legal assessment of the matter, and that a qualified lawyer must review it and speak with the client directly before any advice is given or representation decisions are made.

Customize

Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.

Why this works

Instructing the model to preserve the client's stated goal in their own words, rather than translating it into legal terminology, matters because the gap between what a client asks for ('I want my deposit back') and what they may actually need (a claim under a specific statutory deposit-return framework, or a broader dispute about habitability) is exactly the judgment a lawyer is trained and retained to make, and a summary that's already been translated into legal-sounding language robs the lawyer of seeing the client's original framing, which often contains cues about what they actually care about beyond the literal ask. The explicit conflicts-check extraction step exists because conflict screening is a procedural requirement most firms run before any substantive engagement, and it depends on completely and plainly listing every named party and organization mentioned — a summary that only surfaces 'legally relevant' names, using the model's own judgment of relevance, risks quietly dropping a name that turns out to matter for conflicts purposes even though it seemed incidental to the narrative. The hard rule against filling ambiguous gaps with plausible assumptions is the single most load-bearing instruction here: intake notes are frequently incomplete or contradictory because clients themselves are recalling events under stress, and GPT-5.1's default behavior when summarizing incomplete information is to quietly smooth it into a coherent narrative — converting every such gap into an explicit clarifying question instead means the lawyer's first follow-up call is targeted at the real open questions rather than starting from a summary that has silently papered over exactly the details that needed to be asked about. Refusing to characterize claim strength or likely outcome keeps the tool in the pre-legal-judgment lane, which is the only appropriate lane for an intake summary a lawyer hasn't yet independently reviewed against the client directly.

What you get back

CLIENT'S STATED GOAL (own words): 'I just want my deposit back before I move.' URGENCY FLAG: Client moving in 3 weeks; unclear if a legal filing deadline applies — ask client for exact move-out and lease-end dates. NAMES FOR CONFLICTS CHECK: [Landlord name], [Roommate name] — both mentioned, run through conflicts database. OPEN QUESTION: Client did not specify state or lease terms — needed before applying any deposit-return timeline. This is an intake organization draft only — a qualified lawyer must review it and speak with the client directly before any advice is given.

Verified against

ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-12

Changelog

  • 2026-08-12 Initial publish, verified against ChatGPT GPT-5.1.

Need this built into your business?

If a prompt isn't enough — what Scult builds, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.

EXPLORE WHAT SCULT BUILDS
All Legal & Compliance prompts

Check your AI visibility

One URL in, a 0–100 score and the exact fixes out.

RUN THE CHECK

Browse all the tools

15 tools across six categories
13 of them never send your data anywhere

Free · No signup · No trial clock

SEE THE DIRECTORY