The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Anthropic trying to make you fire your lawyer - link
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 19th, 2026 6:05 PM Author: Galvanic Shimmering Stage Idiot https://x.com/heynavtoor/status/2034589243914465789 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49756420) |
 |
Date: March 19th, 2026 6:38 PM Author: Marvelous Base Asked my Claude prompt engineering expert to review the X post and every prompt he shared, to see if we can extract anything useful:
"No.
This is engagement-farm slop. The replies are more useful than the prompts — the commenters (Tom Martell, @ImmutableLawyer, @aniaacw, @OneManSaas) are all saying what you already know.
The prompts themselves are single-shot, zero-infrastructure, no-guardrail templates with these specific failures:
Persona inflation is the whole trick, and it’s the wrong trick. “You are a senior corporate attorney at Skadden Arps” does nothing useful. The firm name doesn’t change the model’s legal knowledge — it just inflates confidence and suppresses hedging, which is the opposite of what you want for legal output. Your Gem suite uses grounded role framing (“You draft discovery requests for a California PI plaintiff firm”) tied to actual jurisdiction, practice area, and output constraints. That’s the difference between a persona that anchors behavior and one that just sounds impressive.
No verification layer, no placeholder protocol, no QC. Every one of these prompts asks for “ready-to-sign” output. Your entire architecture is built around the opposite principle — [NEED] markers, [CITE CHECK] placeholders, mandatory Gem 6 QC pass, human verification of all arithmetic. These prompts actively encourage the user to skip the step that matters most.
No jurisdiction pinning. The prompts say things like “state-specific enforceability” for non-competes but never force the model to ask which state. California bans most non-competes entirely (Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600). A “ready-to-sign” employment agreement with a non-compete clause drafted for a California employee is malpractice-grade output.
No hallucination controls. No citation verification, no confidence flagging, no instruction to say “I don’t know” when the model is uncertain about a legal standard. These prompts are optimized to produce confident-sounding output, not correct output.
Zero platform optimization. Every prompt is the same wall-of-text format regardless of target model. No thinking budget management, no verbosity control, no structural formatting matched to the platform.
The one commenter who nailed it: Tom Martell — “Claude is the best junior associate I’ve ever had but you don’t have to sensationalize the use case.” That’s the right frame. Your infrastructure already treats AI as a junior associate with mandatory supervision. These prompts treat it as a replacement for the supervising attorney. Nothing to extract here.
|
Date: March 19th, 2026 6:06 PM Author: Galvanic Shimmering Stage Idiot Bet the company prompts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49756422) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2026 6:10 PM Author: Honey-headed Titillating Space Sound Barrier WTF is this supposed to be? What does he think the firm names signify toward achieving the result? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49756432) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2026 6:26 PM Author: magenta boistinker Do you think the model might have had access to some documents produced by these firms during its training runs? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49756477) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2026 6:13 PM Author: Bossy whorehouse These prompts will not produce usable contracts or anything close to it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49756439) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2026 6:15 PM Author: Honey-headed Titillating Space Sound Barrier ? Looks like for the "Davis Polk" style employment offer, the only thing that's missing is to add in "ANY SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS YOU WANT." Seems pretty clear cut. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49756442) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2026 6:22 PM Author: Bossy whorehouse Oh I see how it works now. So for the "Cleary Gottlieb" demand letter, you just need to fill in "WHO OWES YOU MONEY, THE AMOUNT, WHAT THE PAYMENT WAS FOR, AND WHAT COLLECTION EFFORTS YOU'VE ALREADY MADE" and then the AI will be able to accurately "reference the specific contract, invoice, agreement, or verbal promise that created the obligation" and handle all of the other bulletpoints to be included in the letter. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49756467) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2026 6:32 PM Author: Marvelous Base That's literally what first years get paid $200k to do (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49756498) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2026 9:38 AM Author: sapphire new version chapel No GC is paying biglaw rates for a demand letter -- not even associate rates. Maybe some billionaire tard with no in-house attorneys on payroll somewhere is stupid enough to do this but that's about the only kind of tard who would. Demand letters are churned out by slave labor in literal India. Your cost savings is the $20 you would pay you OPS folks in India for this. Maybe the Philippines if youre JPMorgan....
People pay lawyers because the lawyer has done the same deal 500x and knows from heart what needs to be papered, what points can be ignored and what you need to actually fight about and then the lawyer gets on the phone and does the fighting so the rich guy paying him can go do something else because nobody with a billion bucks is going to waste even 30 seconds thinking about work product language and survivability provisions in some independent contractor agreement. The drafting BS is not why the lawyer is on payroll. Everyone has form docs. Everything was papered 50 years ago if not 100 years ago. The bar association has practice guides with forms you can buy for a couple hundred bucks with everything you could want. Those practice guides and about 20 years of actually using them will make you an actually decent lawyer.
|
|
Date: March 20th, 2026 3:43 PM Author: Wonderful organic girlfriend site Guy desperately trying to convince himself (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49758064) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2026 6:31 PM Author: Marvelous Base If I shared my own pi Claude prompts like this guy it would disrupt the entire insurance and legal saas industries overnight (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49756494) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2026 6:36 PM Author: sapphire new version chapel None of those docs are what lawyers actually get paid for. You could buy books of template from the state bar for $200 always. The NVCA forms every capital markets dude uses are free all over the internet. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49756508) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2026 6:38 PM Author: sapphire new version chapel Literally no one is paying Davis Polk to write demand letters. They will do your IPO but no GC is paying their hourly for a demand letter. This shit is laughable. And good luck doing an IPO without a V5 to hand hold you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49756511) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2026 9:42 AM Author: walnut adventurous voyeur "I can't be automated! I'm special!"
Two years ago AI was hallucinating everywhere and borderline retarded. It's coming for your faggot white collar work, Champ. |
|
Date: March 20th, 2026 9:48 AM Author: sapphire new version chapel I use it 500x a day and can safely say that right now its producing more work for lawyers than its destroying by a factor of 4x. Pro-se morons spamming the courts with junk just creates more work. Idiot vendors with shitty lawyers using it to insert retard provisions asking me to obtain separate liquor liability insurance because ChatGPT told them they should ask for this -- just creates more work for lawyers who now have to tell them to suck a dick. Basically the more noise these idiot bots introduce -- the more work. Maybe at some point when the bots are fighting other bots and I dont have to get on the phone with anyone I will be worried. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49757060) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2026 11:23 AM Author: Honey-headed Titillating Space Sound Barrier (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49757277) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2026 10:34 AM Author: electric theater toaster @grok, take my company public, plz. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49757155) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2026 9:44 AM Author: mind-boggling place of business international law enforcement agency thought i was immune as a litigator, but the two chatbots negotiating the contract wrote the arbitration clause to include a third chatbot as the arbitrator. whole thing was done in 30 minutes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5847693&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310905#49757049) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2026 4:02 PM Author: Effete Lavender Trailer Park Stock Car This is hilarious. "It can write NDAs" - okay - so it can do what a paralegal doesn't even bother to review half of the time?
"It can write freelance agreements."
So can I in 3 minutes. Does it know enough to ask basic questions like "who owns the deliverables", if expenses are paid, when it can be terminated?
It might actually do that - but you can see how if you go one level deeper on these agreements, idiots are still going to one to ask their lawyer one this stuff means. |