Attorneys & paralegals · Workflow 02
Turn a client chronology into a research plan, without the client names.
Turn a short, reviewed chronology into a list of issues and search queries to investigate in authoritative legal sources.
The moment this is useful
The task on your desk
An associate asks a paralegal to organise a new commercial dispute file before researching remedies. The client’s email combines delivery dates, messages to the supplier, names of individual employees, and a detailed explanation of the client’s business. You need a research starting point, not a retelling of the whole file.
Keep the facts the question depends on.
Keep for the research
- The jurisdiction, business-to-business relationship, and relevant contract type.
- The sequence of delivery, notice, response, and alleged loss.
- Facts needed to distinguish possible research issues, including uncertainties.
Remove or replace
- Client, counterparty, employee, and witness identities.
- Matter numbers, email signatures, addresses, and internal file links.
- Distinctive business details or quotations that are unnecessary for the issue.
A worked prompt example
Fictional details · Edited by hand after reviewBefore review
Our client Birch Retail Ltd says Oak Packaging missed delivery on 3 June. Erin Wells emailed notice on 5 June and the supplier refused replacement on 8 June. Matter BR-2047. English-law B2B supply contract. What should we research before advising on remedies?
Reviewed prompt
English-law B2B supply contract. The buyer alleges that the supplier missed the agreed delivery date (Day 0). According to the buyer, it sent notice two days later and the supplier refused replacement five days after the missed delivery. Prepare an issue list and search queries for research on possible remedies. Identify missing facts and primary sources to check. Do not calculate deadlines from this relative chronology or invent case citations.
Use this workflow
- Draft a short chronology from the source file without copying the entire client email chain.
- Detect locally and review names, contacts, references, and other highlighted details.
- Replace remaining identifiers and, where suitable, turn dates into an explicit relative sequence.
- Ask for research questions and missing facts. Verify authorities and quotations in your research database.
What you should have at the end
A research checklist the supervising lawyer can refine, with a private source chronology retained in the matter file.
The example supports research preparation. It is not a privilege assessment, a deadline calculation, or a legal opinion.
Questions for this workflow
Can I rely on cases ChatGPT supplies?
Treat any suggested authority as unverified. Find it in an authoritative source, read the relevant passage, and check jurisdiction and currency before relying on it.
Why keep a separate source chronology?
The redacted prompt deliberately omits facts. Keeping the original securely in the matter file lets the reviewer reconnect the research with the actual record without adding identities back into the AI conversation.
Workflow context & further reading
These sources inform the workflow. The example and editing choices are Procurato’s illustration; they are not source-endorsed advice.
- BRAK guidance on AI use (December 2024) — Abstract research prompts, confidentiality, and independent legal review; used here for those principles, not its dated product statements.
From example to your own work
Keep the context. Review the details.
Paste into the local redactor, review each detection, choose what to keep, and check the result before sharing it with your approved AI tool. Names are only part of the review: inspect confidential wording and identifying context too.
Free, no account. Initial model download: about 1.1 GB. Requires WebGPU and several GB of free memory. Detection focuses on English and can miss details. The examples here include manual editing; the tool does not automatically rewrite or summarise your text.