AI Playbook

Oral Submissions and Bench Questions

Structured workflow for oral submissions and bench questions: 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 #Advocacy #Oral-Submissions #Hearing #Interlocutory #Trial #Appeal

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

Convert `[WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS]` into an oral advocacy note for a hearing of `[TIME ALLOCATION]`.

Start with the exact orders sought and the two or three propositions that determine the matter. Provide a timed roadmap, essential record references, key authorities and transitions.

Prepare likely questions from the court, including difficult questions about jurisdiction, pleadings, evidence, delay, prejudice, discretion and remedy. For each, provide a direct short answer, supporting reference and concession or fallback position. End with a precise form of order.

Repository section: Trial and Appellate Submissions

Stage: Interlocutory / trial / appeal

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	Interlocutory / trial / appeal
Document Type	Trial and Appellate Submissions
Prompt Number	40
Required Inputs
Expected Output	Oral Submissions and Bench 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.