AI Playbook
Trial Written Submissions
Structured workflow for trial written submissions: 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
Draft closing written submissions for `[PARTY]` after trial. Use: 1. Overview and Relief; 2. Pleaded Case and Burdens; 3. Issues for Determination; 4. Findings of Fact Sought; 5. Evidence and Admissions by Issue; 6. Applicable Law; 7. Application of Law to Facts; 8. Response to Opponent’s Case; 9. Remedies, Interest and Costs; 10. Conclusion and Proposed Orders. Base factual submissions on the trial record with transcript and bundle citations. Do not rely on an unpleaded case. Treat a witness’s unchallenged evidence carefully: identify whether it was truly unchallenged and whether it is inherently credible and consistent with objective evidence. Address contrary evidence and adverse authorities directly.
Repository section: Trial and Appellate Submissions
Stage: Post-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 | Post-trial |
| Document Type | Trial and Appellate Submissions |
| Prompt Number | 38 |
| Required Inputs | |
| Expected Output | Trial Written Submissions 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. |
