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

Wichita lawyers should treat AI prompts as a practical tool, not a novelty: the ABA Tech Survey shows use of AI in private practice rising sharply while efficiency remains the top benefit, yet 75% of respondents cite accuracy as a leading worry - and Stanford HAI's benchmarking finds legal models still “hallucinate” in about one in six queries.

That double-edged reality means Kansas practitioners can reclaim time (Thomson Reuters estimates AI can free nearly 240 hours per lawyer per year) only if prompts are jurisdiction-aware, retrieval-augmented, and paired with human verification.

Short, skills-first training closes the gap: consider a focused prompt-writing plan and CLEs, or the AI Essentials for Work bootcamp to learn prompt craft and oversight so Wichita firms capture efficiency without sacrificing ethics or reliability.

Start small, require human review, and document uses before scaling firm-wide.

"The legal profession is transitioning to an entirely new technological reality, and teams are under immense pressure to get there faster. What's troubling is that most in-house teams are going it alone - they're not AI experts, they're mostly using risky general-purpose chatbots, and their law firms are capitalizing on AI without sharing the benefits. This creates both opportunity and urgency for legal departments to find better alternatives." - David McVeigh, CEO of Axiom

Selection prioritized prompts that are jurisdiction-aware, ethically defensible, and resilient to the hallucinations and bias that have tripped up real-world filings; choices began with the profession's guardrails - ABA Formal Opinion 512 and emerging state opinions - and the cautionary Mata decision and judge-specific orders documented in the literature, then moved to hands-on prompt engineering and retrieval-augmented testing.

Prompts were drafted to force models to cite sources, limit scope, and surface uncertainty, then stress-tested against a private legal workspace (using features like document Vaults and citation verification described by the Lexis+ AI Protégé legal research tool Lexis+ AI Protégé legal research tool) and iterated for Kansas-relevant workflows (client confidentiality, billing, and pro bono triage).

Testing cycles simulated common tasks - contract redlines, motion skeletons, local research prompts - and measured failure modes (fabricated authorities, misplaced jurisdictional logic, and biased summaries) noted in practitioner analyses; results were reviewed against practical guidance from ethicists and practitioners who emphasize prompt craft and supervision as core skills (ADR 2030 Vision podcast episode on prompt engineering and ABA guidance ADR 2030 Vision podcast on prompt engineering and ABA guidance) and the sanctions and supervisory lessons highlighted by practitioners (Mata-era judicial orders and commentary by Joseph Hollander Mata-era judicial orders and commentary by Joseph Hollander).

The outcome: five prompts that balance utility for Wichita workflows with mandatory human verification and simple, auditable disclosure steps.

“no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence…will be checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a human being.”

Prompt 1 should force the model to stitch federal and state threads into a Kansas-ready playbook: instruct it to pull the District of Kansas's local rules and practitioner resources (see the District's Resource Materials) and to prioritize recent, on-point opinions from the 2024 District of Kansas docket so the synthesis reflects what judges are actually deciding this year; require explicit citations and a short

confidence

note for any jurisdictional claim that invokes the Holmes creation test or the Grable/Merrell Dow/Gunn line on federal-question analysis so the tool flags when a state claim might sneak into federal court.

Add a micro-task to surface judge-specific procedure (admissions, eFiling quirks, CM/ECF contacts) and to check Rule 170's timelines and the

TITLE TO REAL ESTATE INVOLVED

margin notation when proposed orders are in play, which can save a last-minute clerkroom correction (a single missed margin note can feel like a paper filing crying out for a refile).

Finally, require the prompt to return a 3-step litigation strategy (primary authorities, weaknesses, next filings) and to attach the sources used (local rules, recent opinions, and court forms) for quick human verification (see Rule 170: Preparation of Order and a sample 2024 case list for citation context).

Prompt 2 turns contract review into a jurisdiction-aware risk scanner: train the model to extract indemnity language, flag clauses that Kansas law treats as void, and propose narrow, insurance‑backed redlines that keep the deal but remove unenforceable exposure.

against public policy and is void and unenforceable

Under Kansas's anti‑indemnity rules, an indemnification provision that requires a promisor to cover the promisee's negligence or intentional acts is Kansas anti-indemnity statute KS Stat § 16‑121 (2024), and public colleges cannot contractually agree to indemnify others per the Kansas public college indemnity statute KS Stat § 71‑201a (2024).

Effective redline suggestions therefore include (a) converting broad “hold harmless” language into an obligation only to the extent caused by the indemnitor, (b) adding insurance‑limit caps and additional‑insured language that comply with statutory carveouts, and (c) inserting clear notice and control-of‑defense mechanics (some sample forms even condition indemnity on prompt written notice within seven days) to preserve recovery rights while avoiding unintended obligations.

void and unenforceable

The prompt should return the offending clause, the statutory citation, a one‑line risk rating, and a suggested redline that cites the governing Kansas statute so partners can verify before signing - the difference between an enforceable allocation and a liability that's void can live on for years after project close, so flagging it early is essential.

Prompt 3 turns a generic draft into a filing-ready pleading for the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas by baking in the court's local rules, e‑filing procedures, and the Rule 111 form requirements so every motion arrives court‑perfect and auditable: require the assistant to cite the District's local rules and administrative procedures and to include a compact “format check” that confirms the court name is centered, the case caption and number appear on the first page, the filer's contact info and Kansas registration number are present, the text is dark‑ink, 12‑point font, single‑sided, with top margins of at least 1½" and 1" on the sides, and double‑spaced except for permitted subparts (see the District's local rules and administrative procedures and Rule 111 on form of filing).

Insist the model attach the exact rule citations, propose the appropriate CM/ECF event or filing code, and flag judge‑specific standing orders or local practice notes so the partner can verify - because one formatting miss or a noncompliant header can force a last‑minute clerkroom correction.

Output should end with a three‑item human checklist (format, citations verified, upload steps) and links to the source rules for quick review.

Prompt 4 creates a living regulatory and compliance tracker tailored to Kansas operations: instruct the model to scan for employee‑reporting and whistleblower provisions, generate an updated compliance‑reporting policy draft using the Kansas template (encouraging confidential reporting and anti‑retaliation protections) and produce an audit-ready action list of changes and timelines for review; pull official filing and procurement forms from the State's forms library to ensure any policy or contractor language maps to the exact document numbers used by agencies, and export a spreadsheet‑style compliance register so team members can track deadlines and remediation steps in a single place.

Use the Cobrief Kansas compliance reporting policy as a local policy starter and the compliance tracking spreadsheet template as the model's output format so updates become checklists, not memos - because in practice one missed annual review can feel like a surprise audit that could have been caught in a five‑minute dashboard check.

For a mobile or client‑facing page to surface reporting options, pair the tracker with a regulatory landing‑page template to streamline anonymous reporting and employee education.

Client-facing plain-English explanations should answer three simple questions: what happened, what Kansas law likely treats it as, and what to do next - fast. Explain that an oral promise to buy or sell real estate is typically unenforceable in Kansas under the statute of frauds (so a handshake on a property deal can be legally “dead on arrival” unless the parties remove it from the statute) and that many disputes stem from vague terms or missing clauses, which is why preventive drafting matters (Kincaid Law KC guide to unenforceable contracts in Kansas; Olathe Lawyer guide to avoiding litigation through better contract drafting).

Translate legal risk into plain actions: state the parties, the precise scope of obligations, payment terms, termination rights, and choice-of-law; prefer clear mediation or arbitration language; and keep signed, dated copies.

Offer a short next-step plan clients can follow now - (1) preserve all communications and write a one-page plain-English summary, (2) use a Kansas-specific settlement or contract template as a starting point, and (3) seek a focused attorney review before signing (see a customizable Kansas settlement template for examples).

Clear words up front prevent costly fights later, and a one-page checklist often saves far more time (and expense) than a surprise court case.

Wichita firms can't treat AI as a black box - ethics, simple governance, and smart onboarding turn prompts into real gains: modest adoption already frees 1–5 hours a week for many teams (CallidusAI / Everlaw), and prompt mastery - built around the ABCDE framework - keeps outputs jurisdiction‑aware, testable, and auditable; see ContractPodAi's guide to prompt mastery for practical frameworks and prompt‑chaining examples.

Start by documenting use‑cases, building a shared prompt library, requiring human verification and citation checks for any filing or client memo, and choosing enterprise tools that protect confidentiality; then scale with focused training such as Nucamp's AI Essentials for Work 15‑week program so attorneys and staff learn prompt craft, review protocols, and simple disclosure and recordkeeping practices together.

A clear three‑item checklist (format, verified citations, upload steps) for every AI‑assisted product is cheaper than correcting a filing error, and a small, repeatable audit trail protects clients and the firm while capturing the promised efficiency dividends.

to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology