AI Playbook

Trial Bundle and Objections Review

Structured workflow for trial bundle and objections review: 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 #Trial #Bundle #Admissibility #Objections #Pre-Trial

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 `[PROPOSED TRIAL BUNDLE]` and classify each document by agreed status and proposed use.

Identify authentication, hearsay, maker, best-evidence, privilege, without-prejudice, opinion, relevance, completeness and chain-of-custody concerns. State whether an objection concerns admissibility, authenticity, truth of contents, weight or only the use proposed.

Prepare: (a) a document-status table; (b) proposed notices or admissions; (c) objections with legal basis; and (d) a plan to cure each proof problem.

Repository section: Case Management and Trial Preparation

Stage: Pre-trial / trial

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-trial / trial
Document Type	Case Management and Trial Preparation
Prompt Number	36
Required Inputs
Expected Output	Trial Bundle and Objections Review 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.