Work Smarter, Not Harder: Top 5 AI Prompts Every Legal Professional in Peru Should Use in 2025

Peruvian legal professionals should treat AI prompts as practical tools, not futuristic curiosities: Thomson Reuters' 2025 findings show 80% of legal workers expect AI to transform their work, with GenAI already speeding document review, research, and drafting - and offering the potential to save nearly 240 hours per year.

Prompt craft matters because the quality of a GenAI output hinges on how a lawyer frames the task, and firms with a clear AI strategy are far more likely to see real returns; local teams in Peru can start by mapping high-value workflows, verifying Spanish support and data security for vendors, and experimenting with vetted tools.

For a clear roadmap, review the Thomson Reuters 2025 Future of Professionals Report action plan and explore practical, Peru-focused tool tips in this Top 10 AI tools guide for legal pros in Peru.

“Today, we're entering a brave new world in the legal industry, led by rapid-fire AI-driven technological changes that will redefine conventional notions of how law firms operate, rearranging the ranks of industry leaders along the way.” - Raghu Ramanathan, President of Legal Professionals at Thomson Reuters

Selection of the Top 5 prompts began with Peruvian relevance and regulatory safety front‑of‑mind: candidates were screened against Peru's risk‑based framework (Law 31814) to rule out prohibited or high‑risk uses and to ensure human‑oversight, transparency, and data‑governance obligations could be met (Peru AI regulation overview (Law 31814)).

Prompts were chosen for concrete, repeatable value to in‑house and firm teams (research, contract redlines, intake triage) and then stress‑tested using an LLM testing protocol: a benchmark dataset of prompts with expected outputs, manual review to set quality baselines, backtesting after model updates, and automated checks for consistency, correctness, robustness, format adherence and regulatory compliance - the same checklist recommended in LLM testing best practices (LLM testing best practices playbook).

Security and prompt design controls (anonymize inputs, use sandboxes, enforce access controls and encryption) were baked into test runs in line with prompt‑engineering risk guidance (prompt engineering security and risk considerations for legal teams).

Outputs were iteratively refined with persona, context and format constraints until they behaved like a reliable, redacted junior associate - fast, but never trusted without human review.

The final five prompts combine practical templates with monitoring hooks so firms in Peru can scale use while meeting compliance, auditability and client‑confidentiality needs.

Peruvian case law sits inside a clear, hierarchal court system - the Corte Suprema is the highest court, followed by specialised first‑instance courts and local Juzgados de Paz - and that structure shapes how precedents are found, cited, and enforced in practice; for a concise overview of the judicial map and procedural rules, see the Coface Peru country file on the Peruvian judicial system.

Key procedural features that repeatedly appear in decisions deserve prompt templates: a mandatory conciliation phase (two hearings and a signed conciliation act before judicial filing), fast‑track routes for low‑value claims (simplified and shortened proceedings tied to URP thresholds), executive and ordinary proceedings with tight appeal windows, and insolvency tracks run by INDECOPI including virtual preventive (PARC) processes.

These institutional touchpoints -

conciliation “gatekeeper”

URP numeric bands, five‑day execution timelines and three‑day appeal windows - are the practical hooks that make precedent synthesis actionable for drafting litigation strategies and compliance checks; further reading on aligning AI workflows to local risk rules is available in Nucamp AI risk classification guide for Peruvian law firms (AI Essentials for Work syllabus).

Precedent identification in Peru means reading both vertically (which tribunal issued the rule) and horizontally (how domestic and international courts interact): international tribunals can create powerful tools - see the Inter‑American Court's binding judgment in La Oroya, a decision now used by affected families to demand cleanup and care after “nearly all the town's children” showed dangerously high lead levels - while domestic constitutional precedent shapes what remedies are available at home.

For arbitration matters, the Constitutional Tribunal's 2011 Maria Julia precedent remains decisive: amparo against an award is exceptional and admitted only in tightly defined scenarios (direct violation of Constitutional Court binding precedents; diffuse control over a law declared constitutional; or a third party's direct and manifest constitutional affectation), and later procedural tweaks to the NCPC did not overturn that core rule; see the detailed arbitration review for Peru.

Practically, an AI prompt that flags bindingness should prioritize (a) source hierarchy (Corte Suprema, Constitutional Tribunal, Inter‑American Court), (b) whether a ruling is framed as a binding precedent or remedial order, and (c) procedural gates like amparo admissibility and annulment options in arbitration - so that outputs surface the exact legal lever a Peruvian lawyer can test in court rather than generic citations.

“The Inter‑American Court warned that Peru had not complied with international obligations, contributing to prosecutions and convictions of state actors in cases like Cantuta and Barrios Altos.”

When an intake hits the desk with environmental or extraction themes, a Peruvian‑focused prompt should turn a messy file into a clear, auditable checklist: extract who, where and when (region - Loreto, Ucayali, Madre de Dios), the operational plans and regent licenses implicated, OSINFOR inspection results and transport guides, sawmill receipts, and any signs of “ghost trees” (Global Witness documents at least 88 million cubic feet laundered - roughly 113,300 trees - in past schemes).

Use prompts that automatically map facts to remedies so the action plan lists immediate preservation steps (evidence capture, chain‑of‑custody holds, regulatory complaints to OSINFOR/Ministry of Environment), procedural triage (administrative review, amparo or other rapid remedies flagged by human‑rights jurisprudence such as Garcia v.

Peru), and escalation triggers for arbitration or investor‑state considerations when state acts or treaty issues appear. A high‑value detail to surface: which sawmills processed timber with >50–60% illegal provenance, since that single data point often converts an investigation into an enforceable case.

Build templates that output a prioritized to‑do list, required documents, likely tribunals, and suggested next‑step language for clients and regulators.

“The illegality keeps changing.” - Julio Guzmán (Ministry of Environment)

Regulatory tracking in Peru must zero in on a few high‑impact items: Legislative Decree Nº 1182 (the so‑called “Ley Stalker”) - with its three‑year mandatory telecom data retention and expedited police access to real‑time geolocation in cases of blatant crime - remains the single rule to watch for litigation and compliance workflows, alongside the ongoing intelligence‑system reforms that followed the DINI scandal; detailed reform and transparency recommendations can be found in the Peru state communications surveillance report (Hiperderecho & partners) (Peru state communications surveillance report (Hiperderecho)) and the EFF briefing on Peru's surveillance history and Ley Stalker (EFF briefing on Peru's surveillance history and Ley Stalker).

For bigger picture risk signals - useful when mapping enterprise AI data flows - monitor country governance and market indices like the BTI 2024 Peru country governance report to time policy risk reviews and vendor controls (BTI 2024 Peru country governance report); one vivid red flag to program into alerts: any secret protocol or “reserved” procedure that governs operator cooperation - because a hidden rule turns mass metadata into a legal trap for firms and clients alike.

“Few things can be said with certainty about how to reform our national intelligence system mainly because no one really knows how the system has been working over the past ten years. This is precisely the first thing to fix.”

Contracts in Peru demand redlines that reflect local substance, not just translated boilerplate: start with Civil Code defaults (liability for slight fault, fraud or inexcusable fault and force‑majeure under Art.1315) and build clear limits - cap liability to direct damages, carve out gross negligence and willful misconduct per global practice, and insist on explicit language rather than vague “indirect damages” exclusions (see practical drafting tips in this Practical Guide to Contracts in Peru).

Add mandatory operational redlines: condition payment on a “Certificate of Compliance with Labour and Social Security Obligations” to avoid joint and several employer liability for subcontractors; require immediate‑effect exit triggers for serious breaches; and choose jurisdiction (Peruvian courts vs arbitration) with eyes open to amparo/arbitral nuances.

Privacy and security clauses now need upgrades for the 2025 regime - include a local ANPD contact or DPO timeline, ISO/IEC‑aligned technical measures, ARCO‑rights handling, breach notification procedures, and cross‑border transfer safeguards to avoid fines and enforcement headaches (Peru Data Protection Law: Compliance Guide, 2025).

A single missing labour compliance certificate or a weak data‑processing addendum can turn a routine services deal into an expensive compliance crisis, so bake these redlines into contract playbooks and automated review checkpoints.

“It's legal's responsibility to protect the business from risk, but they have to balance this risk with the commercial interest of the contract.” - Daniel van Binsbergen, CEO at Draftpilot

Put prompts into practice in Peru by starting small, building guardrails, and treating AI like a supervised junior associate: pick one high‑value workflow (intake, contract review, or case‑law synthesis), create a vetted prompt library, anonymize client inputs, and require human sign‑off on any filing or advice so the 240‑hour‑per‑year efficiency gains actually land without ethical slips; for hands‑on prompting best practices see Thomson Reuters' guide on the role of well‑designed prompts in legal work and consult practical prompt templates in the Callidus list of Top AI Legal Prompts to copy and adapt for Peruvian procedure.

Measure wins (time saved, fewer routine tasks), lock down vendor security and non‑training data options, and embed continuous testing and monitoring into procurement so model drift doesn't undermine precedent checks or privilege protections - think of agentic workflows as tools to orchestrate steps, not to replace lawyer judgement.

For teams that want structured training, consider the Nucamp AI Essentials for Work 15‑week bootcamp to learn prompt writing, risk controls and practical use cases in 15 weeks.

“Artificial intelligence will not replace lawyers, but lawyers who know how to use it properly will replace those who don't.”