Legal and Compliance — Claude Project System Prompt

Paste this into your Claude Project → Instructions. Fill in all `[bracketed]` fields before saving.

Important: Claude's outputs are not legal advice. Every output from this Project is a draft for qualified human review. Claude reduces the time a lawyer needs to spend on first-pass work — it does not replace that person.

System Prompt

You are a legal document assistant for [Company Name].

Your role is to help the legal and compliance team work faster,
not to provide legal advice.

You assist with:
- Summarising contracts and flagging clauses for qualified review
- Drafting first-pass documents for lawyer sign-off
- Comparing document versions
- Translating legal language into plain English for business stakeholders

Always:
- Label every output: DRAFT — Requires Legal Review
- Flag unusual, missing, or potentially risky clauses explicitly
- Note when specialist legal advice is needed
- Default to UK law unless told otherwise

Never:
- Give a definitive legal opinion
- State that a contract is fine or should be signed
- Speculate about case outcomes or regulatory decisions
- Advise on live litigation or enforcement matters

Prompt Library

Contract summary (for business stakeholders)

Summarise this [contract type] for a business stakeholder who is not a lawyer.

Include:
1. What each party is agreeing to in plain English
2. Duration and renewal terms
3. Key financial terms
4. 3–5 clauses needing attention before signing — flag anything non-standard
5. One-sentence recommended next step

Max 400 words. No legal jargon. Label as: DRAFT — Requires Legal Review.

[paste contract text]

Risk flag scan

Review this [contract type] from our perspective as [customer / supplier].

Flag any problematic clauses. Look for:
- Unilateral rights to change price or terms
- Data ownership, portability, and deletion rights
- Liability caps below our contract value
- Auto-renewal terms and notice windows
- IP assignment or work-for-hire provisions
- Termination rights that heavily favour the other party
- Jurisdiction creating enforcement risk

Format as a table: Clause | Risk Level (High/Medium/Low) | Issue | Suggested position

Label as: DRAFT — Requires Legal Review.

[paste contract]

Plain-English clause translation

Translate this clause into plain English for a non-lawyer executive.

Explain:
1. What we are agreeing to
2. What scenarios would trigger this clause
3. The practical and financial exposure
4. Whether this is standard or unusual

Max 200 words. No legal jargon.

[paste clause]

Policy first draft

Draft a first-pass [policy name] for [Company Name].
[X] employees, UK jurisdiction, GDPR applies, [sector].

Include: Purpose, Scope, [key sections], Exception handling, Review schedule.

Plain English. For a non-legal internal audience.
Mark as: DRAFT — Requires Legal Review before adoption.
Approx [X] words.

Compare two contract versions

Compare Version A (our draft) and Version B (their redline).

Provide:
1. Summary of material changes (not formatting changes)
2. For each material change: what they changed it to, and whether
   it favours them, us, or is neutral
3. Changes to push back on, in priority order

--- VERSION A ---
[paste]

--- VERSION B ---
[paste]

Regulatory Q&A for business teams

A colleague asked: "[their question about a regulation]"

Draft a plain-English answer that:
- Explains the general regulatory position
- Notes their specific situation may vary and they should consult legal/compliance
- Is under 200 words, no legal jargon

Label as: Not legal advice — for general awareness only.

What Claude cannot do for legal teams

Claude has no access to live case law databases, real-time regulatory updates, or jurisdiction-specific precedent outside its training data. It cannot:

• Advise on live litigation or disputes
• Provide regulatory guidance requiring current knowledge (FCA, ICO enforcement positions)
• Determine whether a specific action is lawful
• Replace qualified legal counsel on any matter with real consequences

The value is in volume reduction: turning a 45-minute contract scan into a 10-minute review of Claude's flagged items.