AI Playbook

Reply and Defence to Counterclaim

Structured workflow for reply and defence to counterclaim: organise the supplied facts and documents, identify missing information, draft or analyse in stages, and verify facts, authorities and assumptions before use.

Community feedback only. Editorial ordering is based on relevance, review status and currency.

#General AI #AI Playbook #Litigation #Pleadings #Reply #Defence-To-Counterclaim

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

Draft a Reply and, where applicable, Defence to Counterclaim based on all pleadings and `[MATERIALS]`.

Identify which new matters in the Defence require a reply to avoid surprise, and which matters need no reply because joinder of issue is sufficient. Do not use the Reply merely to repeat or repair the Statement of Claim unless amendment is required.

Answer the Counterclaim paragraph by paragraph and plead any affirmative response. Identify any inconsistency between the Plaintiff’s original case and its proposed answer to the Counterclaim. After drafting, state whether an amendment to the Statement of Claim or additional party is required.

Repository section: Pleadings — Drafting

Stage: Pleadings

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	Pleadings
Document Type	Pleadings — Drafting
Prompt Number	17
Required Inputs
Expected Output	Reply and Defence to Counterclaim 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.