NotebookLM Litigation Prompts: File-Wide “Master” Prompts

Description

Short sequential NotebookLM prompts for file-wide “master” prompts using uploaded litigation documents, with source/page grounding and gap checking.

These prompts are intended to be run as a series rather than pasted as one long instruction. They work best after the relevant pleadings, affidavits, exhibits, correspondence, bundles, notes of evidence, judgments or appeal papers have been uploaded into the notebook.

Standing instruction

> Standing instruction: Answer only from the uploaded sources. Identify the document and page/source supporting each material proposition. Do not invent missing facts. Where the documents conflict, identify the conflict. Distinguish fact, allegation, evidence and submission.

Prompt series

These are useful after all cause papers and evidence have been uploaded.

1. Create a master case matrix: issue, Plaintiff's case, Defendant's case, Plaintiff evidence, Defendant evidence and unresolved questions.

1. Create a master chronology with citations to every material event.

1. Create a master witness matrix showing what each witness proves.

1. Create a master documentary evidence matrix showing what each key document proves.

1. Create a master admissions and contradictions table.

1. Identify the 20 documents counsel must know before trial.

1. Identify the 20 factual propositions counsel must be able to prove.

1. Identify the 10 principal evidential weaknesses in the case.

1. Identify the 10 factual matters requiring client instructions.

1. Prepare a one-page case theory based entirely on the uploaded sources.

---

A very useful workflow

For an actual litigation file, I would probably teach lawyers to run NotebookLM in this order:

Stage 1 — Understand

Summarise the case → identify parties → chronology → causes of action → defences.

Stage 2 — Audit

Pleadings v evidence → evidence gaps → contradictions → admissions → missing documents.

Stage 3 — Prepare

Issues to be tried → witness matrix → evidence matrix → trial documents.

Stage 4 — Trial

Witness examination → cross-examination → daily evidence summary → submissions.

Stage 5 — Appeal

Judgment analysis → grounds → Record of Appeal → appellate evidence matrix.

The particularly powerful concept, Dale, is to turn these into small repeatable “skills” rather than mere prompts. For example:

Skill: Pleading Evidence Audit

1. Identify every material allegation in the SOC.
2. For each allegation identify supporting documents.
3. Identify allegations without documentary support.
4. Identify evidence supporting facts not presently pleaded.
5. Prepare a table of possible amendments.

Skill: Trial Preparation

1. List issues to be tried.
2. Identify burden for each issue.
3. Identify witnesses relevant to each issue.
4. Identify documents relevant to each issue.
5. Identify weaknesses or gaps for each issue.
6. Prepare a trial evidence matrix.

Skill: Cross-Examination

1. Summarise the witness's case.
2. Identify important assertions.
3. Find inconsistent documents.
4. Find prior inconsistent statements.
5. Identify admissions required from the witness.
6. Draft closed questions by topic.

This gives you nearly 400 individual NotebookLM litigation prompts already, but I think the more valuable next layer is to convert them into perhaps 30–40 Malaysian Litigation “Skills”, each with 5–10 sequential NotebookLM prompts, e.g. Defence Drafting, Mareva, Injunction, JR, Cross-Examination, Trial Bundle, Record of Appeal, Written Submissions, Fraud/Money Trail, Construction Defects, Strata Litigation, etc. That would effectively become a litigation playbook for AI-assisted Malaysian practice.

Verification

• Require document and page/source references for material propositions.
• Separate facts, allegations, evidence and submissions.
• Flag contradictions, missing documents and uncertain points.
• Do not use the output directly for filing without lawyer review.