Casesim Client Q And A Prep

Client Q&A Prep — Deposition, Witness Statement, and Mediation Coaching

When to use this

Invoke when:

• An attorney is preparing a client for a deposition
• A client is submitting a witness statement and needs to be ready for follow-up questioning
• A party is attending a mediation where they will be questioned by the mediator or opposing counsel
• A client is testifying in court or before a tribunal (civil or commercial)
• An attorney wants to rehearse a client's narrative before a settlement negotiation

Jurisdictional applicability: deposition procedures vary significantly by forum. The US adversarial deposition model differs from Lebanese civil procedure (where pre-trial witness examination is limited), DIFC arbitration (where witness statements are primary and cross-examination at hearing is more constrained), and KSA Commercial Court practice. Calibrate the coaching intensity and procedure to the actual forum.

Inputs

| Input | Required | Notes | |---|---|---| | Case summary / key facts | Yes | Who are the parties, what is the dispute, what happened? | | Client's role | Yes | Fact witness, party witness, expert witness | | Forum | Yes | Deposition (US), DIFC arbitration, Lebanese court, mediation, etc. | | Key documents | Recommended | Contracts, emails, prior statements, relevant records | | Privilege scope | Recommended | Attorney-client and work-product boundaries for this client | | Known weak points | Optional | Prior testimony, social media, conflicts of interest, prior inconsistencies | | Opposing counsel profile | Optional | Firm, known style, prior cross-examination patterns |

Process

Step 1: Build the Question Bank

From the case file, Louis constructs a question bank organized by topic:

Opening narrative questions (always appear; shape how the client frames themselves):

• "Tell me about yourself and your role at [company]."
• "Walk me through your involvement in [key event]."
• "How long have you worked there, and who did you report to?"

Key fact questions (derived from the specific facts):

• What the client directly observed vs. was told vs. inferred
• Source of knowledge for each material fact ("how do you know that?")
• Documents the client authored, received, forwarded, or was copied on

Conflicting evidence questions (where the record shows inconsistency):

• Prior emails that seem to contradict the client's current position
• Statements made in earlier depositions or declarations
• Social media posts or external communications relevant to the matter

Documents under attack (specific documents likely to be put to the client):

• For each: who drafted it, what does it mean, what was the client's state of mind

Privilege boundary questions:

• Questions designed to pierce attorney-client privilege (indirect approaches)
• Questions designed to discover work product
• The client must know how to respond without inadvertently waiving privilege (redirect to counsel, do not explain privileged communications)

Personal weak points:

• Prior testimony in other proceedings
• Social media activity during the relevant period
• Conflicts of interest or financial interests relevant to the case
• Credibility vulnerabilities (prior conviction, prior inconsistent statement on an unrelated matter)

Step 2: Score Question Difficulty

Each question is scored 1–5:

• 1 (Routine): Uncontroversial facts the client knows well
• 2 (Attention required): Facts requiring precise language; small errors matter
• 3 (Significant): Documents or events where the record could be read multiple ways
• 4 (High-risk): Questions designed to create or exploit inconsistency; privilege boundary proximity
• 5 (Critical): Questions that go directly to the heart of liability or credibility; a bad answer here is case-changing

Focus rehearsal time on Level 3–5 questions.

Step 3: Roleplay Rehearsal

Louis plays opposing counsel. Behavioral modes:

• Baseline: professional, methodical questioning as a competent but not aggressive counsel
• Pressure mode: interrupts frequently, asks compound questions, uses silence as a tool
• Aggressive mode: raised stakes, leading questions, attempts to get the client to commit to damaging positions

The attorney directs which mode to use and when to escalate.

Coaching focus areas during rehearsal:

• Rambling: client gives too much information; answers go beyond what was asked
• Speculation: client answers what they think must have happened rather than what they know
• Volunteering: client introduces new information that was not asked for
• Imprecision: client uses approximations ("around," "maybe," "I think") on facts that are documentable
• Hedging when clarity is needed: over-qualified answers on simple documented facts look evasive

Step 4: Critique and Refine

After each answer, Louis provides structured feedback:

• What was strong (accurate, concise, appropriately limited to knowledge)
• What needs adjustment (and why: volunteered, speculative, over-explained, inconsistent with document X)
• Suggested rephrase (if the answer structure, not the fact, is the problem)

The attorney and client iterate until the answer set is stable.

Step 5: Stress Test

Final rehearsal run:

• Full simulated session at speed with time pressure (limited minutes per question set)
• Random interruption ("wait — you said earlier… [invented inconsistency]") to test whether the client handles pressure calmly
• Back-to-back difficult questions without breaks

The attorney reviews the stress-test log and decides whether more prep is needed.

Output

At the end of each session Louis produces:

1. Question bank (full list, scored by difficulty, with notes)
2. Answer coaching notes (per question: what to say, what to avoid, how to respond to follow-ups)
3. Rehearsal log (timestamped record of questions asked, answers given, coaching notes applied)

Hard limits

Louis will not:

• Coach a client to fabricate facts or give knowingly false testimony
• Help a client conceal documents that are subject to disclosure obligations
• Draft scripts that instruct the client to misrepresent their knowledge or memory
• Advise a client to hide or destroy evidence

If a user request crosses these lines, Louis declines and explains why.

Jurisdictional notes

| Forum | Key preparation differences | |---|---| | US Deposition | Broad scope; counsel can object but client must answer unless privilege; video-recorded; transcript binding | | DIFC / LCIA Arbitration | Witness statement primary; oral examination at hearing is more constrained; tribunal controls the process | | Lebanese Civil Court | Oral examination by judge rather than by parties; preparation focuses on judge's likely questions rather than counsel's | | KSA Commercial Court | Written evidence primary; oral testimony limited; preparation focuses on written statement accuracy | | Mediation | Non-compulsory; client should be prepared for the mediator's probing questions and for informal dialogue with the opposing party |

Related skills

• [[casesim-cross-examination-rehearsal]]
• [[casesim-judge-bench-perspective]]
• [[casesim-opposing-counsel-simulator]]
• [[casesim-fact-pattern-builder]]
• [[academy-litigation-game-coach]]

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: sboghossian
• Source: sboghossian/mini-claude-for-legal
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.