Client Interview Questions
Structured workflow for client interview questions: organise the supplied facts and documents, identify missing information, draft or analyse in stages, and verify facts, authorities and assumptions before use.
This is a reusable litigation prompt from the Litigation AI Prompt Repository. It is intended for Malaysian civil litigation but can be adapted by changing the placeholders. Use the Universal Litigator Control Block first where source discipline, adversarial review and authority verification matter.
Prompt
Review `[CLIENT NARRATIVE]` and `[MATERIALS]`. Prepare a focused set of questions for the next client conference. Group the questions under: - identity, authority and standing; - transaction or relationship background; - chronology; - representations, agreements and obligations; - breach, wrongdoing or defence; - causation and loss; - documents and communications; - witnesses; - admissions and adverse facts; - limitation and delay; - prior proceedings, settlements or regulatory action; - remedies and commercial objectives. For each question, briefly state why the answer matters and identify any document that should be requested. Avoid generic questions already answered by the materials. Put the most outcome-determinative questions first.
Repository section: Client Intake and Early Case Assessment
Stage: Pre-action / onboarding
Suggested use: replace all square-bracket placeholders before running the prompt. For client-confidential materials, prefer a private or local model where available.
| Jurisdiction | Malaysia / adaptable |
| Practice Area | Civil Litigation |
| Party Role | Any / as prompt specifies |
| Lifecycle Stage | Pre-action / onboarding |
| Document Type | Client Intake and Early Case Assessment |
| Prompt Number | 2 |
| Required Inputs | |
| Expected Output | Client Interview Questions output structured for litigation practice. |
| Reviewed On | 2026-07-26 |
| Version | 1.0 |
| Verification Checklist | Distinguish facts, allegations and assumptions., Cite the document/page for each material fact where possible., Identify missing or contradictory evidence., Do not invent authorities., Check every authority and quote only verified propositions., Separate proposed drafting from facts requiring client confirmation. |
