De-identify a fact pattern without destroying the legal question
Lesson 2 of 6 · Confidentiality and the client's facts
1 · Learn the move · Template pattern
The skill is not 'take the names out'. It is: take out everything that identifies, keep everything the legal question turns on, and know the difference. A client's name identifies; so does the combination of their industry, their city and the size of the deal, when there is one such deal in that city. A date identifies when it is the date of a public event. A docket number identifies absolutely. What the legal question needs is the relationship between the parties, the sequence of what happened, the terms that matter, and the jurisdiction. The template below is the same every time, and the model fills the left column only after you have filled the right: PARTIES (Client A, Counterparty B, Witness C, by role), SEQUENCE (what happened, in order, dates as 'day 1, day 40'), TERMS (the contract language or the statutory elements, verbatim where it matters, with no party name in it), JURISDICTION (the court and the governing law), QUESTION (one sentence). Then the line every output carries: redaction lowers risk and does not create a privilege safe harbor. A fact pattern unusual enough to identify on its own is still identifying with the names gone, and the model is told to flag that rather than pretend it is not so.
Rewrite the fact pattern below into the template: PARTIES by role (Client A, Counterparty B...), SEQUENCE in order with relative days, TERMS verbatim where the question turns on wording (no names inside the quotation), JURISDICTION, QUESTION in one sentence. Then a DIFF: what you removed | what replaced it | why. Then UNUSUAL FACTS: anything that might identify the matter with the names gone. End with the line: redaction lowers risk and does not create a privilege safe harbor. Fact pattern: [paste, with the names still in; nothing comes back with them]
2 · Your turn. You write the prompt
An associate needs to ask whether a non-compete is enforceable against a client's departing sales director. The intake note has the client's name, the city, the industry (there is one such employer in that city), the director's name, and the date of the resignation, which was in the local paper. The question turns on two sentences of the agreement and the state.
Write the prompt for this scenario as given, or swap in a real one from your own work. The score works the same either way.
Remember: the AI sees only your prompt, not this page. If the situation isn't in your prompt, it doesn't exist.
Optional. These shape the output when you run your prompt below, not your score.