AI-Powered Litigation: From Jurisdiction Analysis to Motion Drafting

📅 Published: February 2026 | ⏱️ 11 min read | ✍️ Whisperit Legal Tech Team

Litigation is where AI meets its toughest test. Unlike contract review — which is largely pattern-matching — litigation demands legal reasoning, fact application, and strategic judgment. The good news? Researchers at Stanford, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins have built benchmarks that prove AI can handle core litigation tasks when given the right prompts.

This guide gives you 20+ litigation-ready prompts for jurisdiction analysis, evidence evaluation, motion drafting, case research, and oral argument prep — all sourced from LegalBench, CaseHOLD, and professional practice.

⚠️ Important: Litigation prompts require more careful review than contract prompts. AI can assist your analysis, but every output must be verified against current law in your jurisdiction.

---

🏛️ Section 1: Jurisdiction Analysis

Getting jurisdiction right is the threshold question in any litigation. These prompts codify the legal standards so AI can apply them consistently.

Personal Jurisdiction

text
Analyze whether a court in {state} can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant:

{fact_pattern}

Consider:
1. Is the defendant domiciled in the forum state?
2. Does the defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum?
3. Do the claims arise from the nexus of the defendant's contacts?

Conclusion: Personal jurisdiction exists / does not exist. Explain your reasoning.

📋 Template: This prompt is derived from LegalBench's personal jurisdiction task, which tests four sub-patterns: domicile, no contacts, contacts without nexus, and contacts with nexus. It correctly mirrors the International Shoe framework.

Practical Example:

text
Analyze whether a court in California can exercise personal jurisdiction over TechCorp LLC:

TechCorp is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Texas. It sells software nationwide through its website, generating approximately $2M in annual revenue from California customers. TechCorp has no offices, employees, or physical presence in California. The plaintiff, a California resident, purchased TechCorp's software online and alleges it contained defects causing data loss.

Consider:
1. Is the defendant domiciled in California?
2. Does the defendant have sufficient minimum contacts?
3. Do the claims arise from the nexus of the defendant's contacts?

Conclusion with reasoning.

Diversity Jurisdiction

text
Determine if federal diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332:

Plaintiff(s): {plaintiff_info_with_citizenship}
Defendant(s): {defendant_info_with_citizenship}
Amount in controversy: {amount}

Requirements: (1) Complete diversity of citizenship, (2) Amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Does diversity jurisdiction exist? Answer Yes or No with reasoning.

💡 Pro Tip: LegalBench includes 6 diversity jurisdiction sub-tasks of increasing complexity. Start with simple two-party scenarios and work up to multi-party cases with corporate citizenship issues.

---

📜 Section 2: Evidence Analysis

Hearsay Classification

This is one of the most well-validated legal AI tasks. LegalBench tests 5 distinct hearsay patterns — this prompt handles all of them:

text
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Issue being litigated: {issue}
Evidence to be introduced: {evidence_description}

Is this evidence hearsay? Analyze:
1. Was there a "statement" (oral, written, or assertive conduct)?
2. Was it made outside of court?
3. Is it being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

Conclusion: Hearsay / Not hearsay. Explain.

The 5 hearsay patterns AI should recognize:

Evidence Admissibility Workflow

For trial prep, chain these prompts together:

1. Step 1 — Hearsay check (prompt above)
2. Step 2 — Exception analysis:

text
The following evidence has been identified as hearsay:

Evidence: {evidence_description}
Context: {context}

Does any hearsay exception apply?
Consider: Present sense impression, excited utterance, then-existing mental condition, statements for medical treatment, recorded recollection, business records, public records, dying declaration, statement against interest.

Identify the most applicable exception and analyze whether the requirements are met.

---

⚔️ Section 3: Motion Drafting & Case Analysis

Motion to Dismiss (FRCP 12(b)(6))

text
You are a litigation attorney. Based on the following complaint and applicable law, analyze potential grounds for a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6):

Complaint summary: {complaint_summary}
Jurisdiction: {jurisdiction}
Applicable law: {area_of_law}

For each potential ground:
1. State the legal standard
2. Apply it to the facts
3. Assess the likelihood of success
4. Draft a brief argument paragraph

💡 Pro Tip: After getting the analysis, follow up with: "Now draft the motion's introduction and argument section. Use the Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard. Cite applicable case law from {jurisdiction}."

Overruling Detection

Before citing any case, make sure it's still good law. This prompt mirrors LegalBench's overruling task:

text
Read the following sentence from a judicial opinion:

"{sentence}"

Does this sentence indicate that a prior court decision is being overruled?
Answer Yes or No.

Case Holding Identification

From the CaseHOLD benchmark (53,000+ samples from Harvard Law Library):

text
Read the following excerpt from a court opinion:

"{opinion_excerpt}"

The opinion references {case_name}. Which of the following correctly states the holding?

A: {holding_1}
B: {holding_2}
C: {holding_3}
D: {holding_4}
E: {holding_5}

📋 Template: Use this when you need to quickly verify what a cited case actually held, especially when opposing counsel characterizes a holding differently than you'd expect.

---

🎤 Section 4: Oral Argument Preparation

Question Purpose Analysis

text
Read the following question asked by a judge during oral argument:

"{question_text}"

What is the purpose of this question?
Categories:
- Testing the strength of an argument
- Seeking clarification
- Playing devil's advocate
- Exploring implications
- Inviting concession

Moot Court Preparation

text
You are preparing for oral argument in {case_name}. You represent {party}.

Key issues:
{list_of_issues}

For each issue, generate:
1. The 3 toughest questions a judge might ask
2. A concise, persuasive answer for each
3. The one concession you should be prepared to make
4. A pivot that brings you back to your strongest argument

---

🔎 Section 5: Legal Research Prompts

Legal Rule Recall

text
Question: {legal_question}

Provide the applicable legal rule, cite where it is codified (if applicable), and explain its elements.

Legal Definition Extraction

text
Read the following sentence from a Supreme Court opinion:

"{sentence}"

Does this sentence define a legal term? If yes, what term is being defined?

Statutory Interpretation — Textualism Check

text
Read the following excerpt from a judicial opinion:

"{excerpt}"

Does the author use textualist interpretive tools (e.g., dictionary definitions, plain meaning arguments)?
Answer Yes or No with evidence.

---

📈 Section 6: Securities Litigation

Party Identification in Securities Complaints

text
Read the following excerpt from a securities class action complaint:

"{complaint_text}"

Identify:
1. All company defendants
2. All individual defendants
3. All named plaintiffs

---

🔧 Litigation Workflow: Putting It Together

Pre-Litigation Checklist

💡 Pro Tip: Run jurisdiction analysis before doing any other work. There's no point drafting a motion if you're in the wrong court.

---

⚠️ Critical Limitations for Litigation Use

• AI cannot cite real cases reliably. Always verify every case citation independently. AI frequently generates plausible-sounding but nonexistent citations.
• Jurisdiction-specific rules matter. Federal prompts don't automatically transfer to state practice.
• Strategic judgment is human. AI can analyze; it can't decide whether to file, settle, or go to trial.
• Privilege concerns. Be mindful of what you upload to AI platforms — client confidential information requires appropriate safeguards.

---

🚀 Litigation-Ready AI with Whisperit

Drafting motions, preparing arguments, and analyzing evidence is faster when your AI understands legal documents. Whisperit.ai combines AI-powered document drafting with voice-to-text dictation — perfect for litigation attorneys who think faster than they type.

Draft your next motion with Whisperit →

---

Part 3 of 5 in our Legal AI Prompt Series. Next: M&A Due Diligence with AI →