Lexabrief
Documentation

How to ask

Lexa is the interaction point for nearly everything, so how you ask is most of how well this works. These are the prompts the product itself ships.

The shape of a good ask

Every prompt below is one sentence with three things in it: the outcome you want, the scope it should work over, and the form you want it back in. That is the whole technique.

  • Name the outcome, not the tool. "Map each element of each claim to the evidence I have" beats "use the evidence tool". You are describing a result a colleague could hand you.
  • Say what to work over. "From what's on file", "in this matter's jurisdiction", "in the current draft". Without a scope, a research question becomes a general one.
  • Say what you want back. A one-page memo, a chronology, the argument section, a list. The form changes the answer.
  • Ask for the gaps too. "and flag any gaps", "and show me the elements with nothing behind them". A question that invites the negative answer gets an honest one.
  • One question per message. A four-part ask returns four shallow answers. Send the next one after you have read the first.

Starting from the catalog

You do not have to invent these. What can Lexa do? in the case sidebar holds every question the product answers. Tap a question to load it into your message. Edit it, then Send. Editing it is the point: swap in your own claim, your own deadline, your own document.

Understanding a record you just inherited

Example prompt

Read what's on file and tell me what this case is really about.

Reads the whole record and gives you the shape of the matter, with the pages behind it.
Example prompt

Pull the parties, court, judge, and key dates from what's on file.

Pulls the parties, the court, the judge and every date on file into one list.
Example prompt

Build me a chronology from the documents, and flag any gaps.

Builds a dated timeline from the documents, each entry tied to the page it came from.
Example prompt

Tell me which facts are admitted, disputed, or unaddressed so far, and where each one comes from.

Sorts the facts by whether the other side conceded them, fought them, or left them alone.
Example prompt

Read the latest order in this case - what does it actually require, and by when?

Reads the most recent order and states what it obliges you to do, and the dates it falls due.

Researching the law

Research prompts are worth being specific with, because "in this matter's jurisdiction" is doing real work: it keeps the search on the law that governs your court rather than the most quotable case in the country.

Example prompt

Find controlling cases on point for the central legal issue, in this matter's jurisdiction.

Searches the case law and returns the passage that governs, with its pincite.
Example prompt

What is the governing framework for the central issue, and where do we stand on each part?

Names the standard the court will apply and walks each part of it against your facts.
Example prompt

Look up the statute that governs the central issue here and quote the operative language.

Pulls the statute or code section and quotes the language that decides the question.
Example prompt

Find the strongest authorities against my position on the central issue, and tell me how to meet them.

Finds the best authority for the other side, so it does not reach you first in their brief.
Example prompt

Check whether the authorities I am relying on are still good law, and flag anything that undercuts them.

Looks for later decisions that criticise, limit, or overrule what you are leaning on.

Drafting

Drafting runs are the long ones. Point them at the record you have already uploaded, and ask for the section rather than the whole brief when you want to steer it.

Example prompt

Write a one-page case memo I can hand to a partner tomorrow.

Produces the memo in a document you can edit and export to Word, with page pins on every proposition.
Example prompt

Draft the argument section of a motion using the strongest facts and authorities on file.

Builds the argument out of the facts and authorities already in this case.
Example prompt

Turn this record into a statement of facts, with a record citation on every sentence.

Composes the facts narrative from the record, sentence by sentence, each one tied to its page.
Example prompt

Draft a demand letter to opposing counsel - firm but professional.

Drafts the letter from the facts on file, in a register you can send.

Pressure-testing what came back

The most useful prompts in the product are the ones that attack your own work before opposing counsel does.

Example prompt

Act as a neutral judge and critique the current draft - flag every weakness inline.

Reads the draft the way an unsympathetic judge would, and marks the soft spots in place.
Example prompt

Check that each cited authority in the current draft actually supports the proposition it is cited for.

Reads each cited source and tells you which citations are sound and which need your judgment.
Example prompt

Map each element of each claim to the evidence I have, and show me the elements with nothing behind them.

Lines up the evidence behind every element of your claims and defenses, and shows what has none.
Example prompt

Check what I am about to file against the court's rules for that kind of paper, and tell me what is missing.

Checks the paper against the court's rules for that kind of filing, and names what is missing.

Working a flagged citation

After a citation check, you can stay in the chat rather than clicking through the panel:

Example prompt

Walk me through the citations in "Opposition to Motion to Compel" that need my judgment, one at a time. Use the citation check you already ran if it is current.

The prompt the "Review these with Lexa" button loads. Telling it to reuse the existing check is what keeps it from spending a second run.
Example prompt

In "Opposition to Motion to Compel", tell me about this citation and what my options are: Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012)

The per-citation "Ask Lexa" prompt. Naming the document keeps the answer attached to the draft it is about.

When a run goes somewhere you did not want

  • Correct it in the next message rather than restarting. The conversation carries the case and the draft with it; a new chat starts from nothing.
  • Tell it what is wrong, specifically. "This section argues waiver, but our position is that the objection was never preserved" moves a draft further than "try again".
  • Ask it to show its work. "Which document does that come from, and what page?" is answerable, and the answer tells you whether the point is in your record at all.
  • Watch the model picker on a long job. The default model is right for most questions; the heavier one is for genuinely complex work and costs more per answer.