AI Playbook

Causes of Action and Defence Generator

Structured workflow for causes of action and defence generator: 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 #Strategy #Causes-Of-Action #Defences

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

From `[FACTS AND DOCUMENTS]`, identify every reasonably arguable cause of action, defence, counterclaim, set-off and procedural objection for `[PARTY]`.

Do not maximise the number of claims mechanically. For each theory provide: elements; supporting facts; adverse facts; evidence; limitation; parties; remedies; inconsistent alternatives; likely response; and whether it should be pursued, investigated, reserved or rejected.

Include non-contractual, equitable, restitutionary, statutory and procedural routes only where the facts justify considering them. Rank the theories by legal coherence, evidential support and practical utility.

Repository section: General Strategic and Quality-Control Prompts

Stage: Any

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	Any
Document Type	General Strategic and Quality-Control Prompts
Prompt Number	47
Required Inputs
Expected Output	Causes of Action and Defence Generator 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.