Interrogatory Answer Support Builder
Gather the record facts and cites that support each interrogatory answer — facts only, gaps flagged, so the attorney drafts from evidence instead of memory.
Worked example · Synthetic fictional details
Sample prompt
Synthetic example: The names, dates, case details, and issues below are fictional CasePrompts sample values, not client data or evidence from a real matter. They demonstrate the prompt format, not the accuracy of any AI model's output.
Preview the complete sample prompt
CONTEXT: You are a litigation support analyst assisting paralegal supporting counsel in a motor vehicle negligence matter. The attached materials are the case record, including police report; medical records production; employer wage records. Interrogatory answers must be prepared on subjects including: accident sequence; medical treatment to date; wage loss. INSTRUCTIONS: For each subject, assemble the factual support an answer would draw on — facts only, never legal positions or characterizations: 1. Collect every record fact responsive to the subject, stated neutrally and exactly as the record supports it. 2. Attach a cite to every fact. 3. Where sources conflict, present both with cites — do not resolve the conflict. 4. Where the record is silent on something an answer would ordinarily state, flag the gap explicitly. You are building the evidentiary scaffolding; the attorney drafts and verifies the answers themselves. TEMPLATE — format your output exactly as follows: ## Subject: [subject] | # | Record fact (neutral statement) | Cite | Conflict? | |---|---|---|---| **Gaps:** what an answer would ordinarily state that this record does not establish. [repeat per subject] ## Sources consulted Bullet list of the documents reviewed, so the drafting attorney knows the universe. EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS: For every finding, identify the source document by name and cite page:line for transcripts, timestamps for audio/video, and Bates/page for documents. Facts only — no conclusions, no characterizations, no positions. Use [BRACKETED PLACEHOLDERS] for details the attorney must supply or verify. If the record does not support a statement, omit it and log the gap — never write toward a fact that is not in the record. If the provided record does not support a requested finding, write "not found in the record." Do not infer or fill gaps from outside knowledge. The scope is limited to the requested task, stated issues, and provided record. Do not introduce outside subjects or sources. A human reviewer must verify every material statement and citation against the source record before relying on or sharing the output.
Through the Civil / insurance defense lens
Maintain a neutral, evaluative tone appropriate for carrier reporting; keep established facts and the plaintiff's contentions visibly separate throughout.
Through the Commercial litigation lens
Tie every factual premise to a document with a Bates cite; recollection unsupported by the record gets flagged, not adopted.
Through the Criminal defense lens
Build examination sequences that commit witnesses to specifics before any confrontation, and never embed a factual premise the discovery does not contain.
Through the Employment litigation lens
Build examination sequences that commit decision-makers to the reasons and the timing before any confrontation with the documents.
Through the Family law lens
Keep the tone measured and factual; inflammatory framing reliably backfires in family court, and specificity does the persuading.
Through the Medical malpractice — defense lens
Keep established chart facts and the plaintiff's allegations visibly separate, and let the contemporaneous documentation carry the persuasion.
Through the Medical malpractice — plaintiff lens
Write toward the causation chain — each clinical decision linked to its consequence — with provider language quoted verbatim and no medical conclusions the record does not state.
Through the Personal injury — plaintiff lens
Write toward a coherent narrative of fault and harm; specificity about the client's documented losses carries the persuasion — never adjectives.
Through the Probate & estate litigation lens
Keep it factual and element-driven; probate courts reward precision over heat, and a clean record cite persuades where adjectives do not.
Through the Prosecution lens
Build examinations that establish elements through specifics and anticipate the defense themes the record itself suggests.
Through the Workers' compensation — claimant lens
Write toward the statutory touchpoints — notice, causal connection, restrictions, wage loss — with provider and employer language quoted verbatim.
Through the Workers' compensation — employer/carrier lens
Maintain a neutral, evaluative tone appropriate for carrier reporting, keeping established facts and the claimant's contentions visibly separate.
AI output is a starting point, not work product. Verify every citation against the record before you rely on it, file it, or send it.
What you'll fill in
- 01Your role
- 02Case typee.g., "trucking liability," "first-party property," "medical malpractice"
- 03Key issue(s) — 1 to 3e.g., "vehicle speed at impact; brake maintenance; visibility"
- 04Prior statements / materials in play(optional)e.g., "recorded statement to adjuster (6/2/24); affidavit (9/1/24)"
Pro tip The gaps list doubles as the client-interview agenda before answers are verified.
Related templates
Demand Letter Facts Section
Draft the facts and damages narrative of a demand from the record itself — every sentence cite-backed, gaps flagged instead of papered over.
AI Deposition Outline Prompt from the Record
Turn the verified case record into a topic-based deposition outline with fact-locking goals, record-cited exhibits, conflict probes, and open-to-closed question sequences.
Requests for Admission Drafter
Draft Requests for Admission aimed at single facts the record already supports — one fact each, grouped by issue, plus authentication RFAs and the facts you still need.