Opposing Counsel Communication Prompts
10 AI prompts for when you want to call opposing counsel an asshole but need to stay professional. Copy, paste, fill in your specifics, and let AI help you write the deadly professional response.
Copy these prompts when opposing counsel is testing your patience. Fill in the brackets with your specifics. Let AI ask you questions first - that's when you get strategic instead of reactive.
When You Really Want to Call Them an Asshole (But Need to Stay Professional)
"Opposing counsel just [did something ridiculous/unprofessional] and I need to respond firmly without giving them ammunition for a Bar complaint or looking petty to the judge.
What they did: [specific action]
Why it's BS: [the actual problem]
What I need from them: [the fix]
Who might see this: [judge? client? court file?]
Ask me: What's my actual goal here - to vent, to get them to stop, or to create a record? Then help me write something that sounds deadly professional but makes it crystal clear they're out of line."
Why this works: Separates your emotional reaction from your strategic goal, creates the professional record you actually need.
When They're Ignoring Your Emails (Again)
"I've sent [number] emails about [issue] and opposing counsel is ghosting me. Help me write a message that creates a paper trail without sounding whiny.
What I need from them: [specific response/action]
How long they've been ignoring it: [timeline]
What happens if they keep stalling: [consequence]
My next move if they don't respond: [your plan]
Ask me: Am I actually being ignored or are they just buried? What leverage do I have? Then draft something that makes ignoring me more painful than responding."
Why this works: Forces you to diagnose whether this is tactical or just disorganization, sets up your next move, creates the record.
When Their "Emergency" Motion Is Actually Just Them Being Dramatic
"Opposing counsel filed an 'emergency' motion about [issue] that's not remotely an emergency. Help me respond in a way that highlights how ridiculous this is without looking like I'm not taking it seriously.
Their claimed emergency: [what they're saying]
Why it's not an emergency: [reality]
The actual timeline: [facts]
What they're really trying to do: [their strategic goal]
Ask me what the judge needs to see to reject this as non-urgent. Then help me write a response that's respectful to the court but makes opposing counsel look foolish."
Why this works: Keeps you focused on the judge as your audience, exposes the tactic without looking defensive.
When They Sent You a Nasty Letter Copying Your Client
"Opposing counsel sent a letter making [accusations/demands] and copied my client to try to freak them out. Help me respond in a way that shuts this down without escalating.
What they accused you of: [the claims]
Why they copied your client: [their tactic]
What your client is now thinking: [their reaction]
The facts they're distorting: [reality]
Ask me: Do I respond to them or just my client? What's the minimum I need to say? Then help me draft responses that calm my client and box in opposing counsel."
Why this works: Addresses both audiences separately, prevents you from writing an angry response, focuses on damage control.
When They're Proposing Something Ridiculous with a Straight Face
"Opposing counsel proposed [completely unreasonable terms/argument] and they seem to think this is a genuine negotiating position. Help me respond without laughing at them or my client thinking I'm not taking them seriously.
Their proposal: [what they want]
Why it's absurd: [legal/factual problems]
What a reasonable position would be: [actual middle ground]
Whether they're stupid or strategic: [your read]
Ask me if this is worth engaging with or if I should just say 'no thanks.' Then help me write a response that doesn't dignify the ridiculous parts but stays professional."
Why this works: Makes you decide if engagement legitimizes their position, keeps you from wasting time on detailed rebuttals of nonsense.
When You Need to Fact-Check Them Without Calling Them a Liar
"Opposing counsel's letter contains [factual errors/mischaracterizations] and I need to correct the record without directly calling them dishonest.
What they got wrong: [specific errors]
The actual facts: [correct version]
Whether this was intentional: [your assessment]
What depends on getting this right: [stakes]
Ask me: Is this sloppy work or deliberate? Who else needs to see this correction? Then help me write something that establishes the correct facts without making this personal."
Why this works: Focuses on the record not their character, creates evidence for later use, avoids the credibility trap.
When They're Being Nice and You Don't Trust It
"Opposing counsel is suddenly being cooperative about [issue] after being difficult for months. Help me respond appropriately while protecting my client from whatever they're actually up to.
What they're offering: [the concession]
Why this is suspicious: [the history]
What the catch might be: [your theory]
What my client wants to do: [their reaction]
Ask me: What could they gain by giving this up? What should I be checking before I say yes? Then help me respond in a way that accepts graciously but confirms everything in writing."
Why this works: Validates your suspicion without making you paranoid, ensures you document the terms, keeps relationship cordial.
When You Need to Reject Their Discovery Requests Without Starting a War
"Opposing counsel's discovery requests are [overbroad/irrelevant/harassing] but I need to object without making the judge think I'm hiding something.
What they're asking for: [requests]
Why you're objecting: [legal basis]
What you're willing to produce: [reasonable alternative]
How cooperative you've been so far: [history]
Ask me: Which requests are genuinely problematic vs just annoying? What can I give them that moots the fight? Then help me write objections that are legally sound but show I'm being reasonable."
Why this works: Separates legitimate objections from stubbornness, positions you as the reasonable one, offers middle ground.
When They Accused You of Not Conferring (And You Definitely Did)
"Opposing counsel told the court I didn't attempt to confer about [issue] but I have [emails/messages] proving I did. Help me correct this without making it a bigger deal than it needs to be.
What they claimed: [their statement]
Your proof you tried: [evidence]
When you attempted to confer: [timeline]
Why they might have said this: [incompetence? lying? miscommunication?]
Ask me if this is worth filing something over or just a quick email to the court. Then help me set the record straight in whatever format makes sense."
Why this works: Proportional response, proves your point with evidence, doesn't blow up a relationship over possible miscommunication.
When You Actually Screwed Up and Need to Fix It
"I [missed a deadline/sent wrong version/made an error] in my communication with opposing counsel and need to fix it without losing credibility or leverage.
What you did wrong: [the mistake]
How they could use it against you: [risk]
What fixing it requires: [the ask]
How cooperative they've been generally: [relationship context]
Ask me: Can I fix this without telling them I screwed up? If I have to admit it, what's the least damaging way? Then help me write something that solves the problem with minimum exposure."
Why this works: Makes you think strategically about disclosure, finds the least damaging path, maintains professional credibility.
The Pattern You'll Notice
Every one of these prompts:
- Names what you actually want to say (vs what you should say)
- Identifies your real goal (vent, fix, record, strategize)
- Makes AI ask about your options before drafting
- Focuses on the right audience (judge, client, opposing counsel, court file)
The best responses aren't the cleverest ones. They're the ones that accomplish your goal without creating new problems.
Next: Client Communication Prompts - when clients are driving you crazy
Want more practical AI guidance?
Get actionable tips and strategies delivered weekly. No theory, just real-world implementation.