Legal Reasoning Prover MCP Connector for Claude

You must: (1) frame the legal ISSUE with governing rule and disputed facts — specific enough that a judge could understand the controversy from this paragraph alone, (2) state the controlling RULE — statute with section, regulation with CFR cite, or case holding with full Bluebook citation. "The law provides" is not a rule statement, (3) APPLY the rule to the specific facts — show the logical bridge element by element. Each element of the rule mapped to a specific fact, (4) cite REAL authorities — actual cases with volume, reporter, page, court, year, and the specific holding relied upon. LLMs hallucinate 30-40% of citations, (5) identify the JURISDICTION — federal vs. state, which circuit or district, Erie analysis for substantive law, choice-of-law if multi-state, (6) address the strongest COUNTER-ARGUMENT — ABA Rule 3.3(a)(2) mandates disclosure of adverse controlling authority. State the opposing position at its strongest, then distinguish, (7) propose a SPECIFIC remedy — procedural vehicle, rule basis, relief sought, timing. "Consult an attorney" is not a remedy. If rejected, fix the structural deficiency before advising. Structured reflection tool for US legal reasoning — forces IRAC methodology, Bluebook-verifiable citations, jurisdiction identification, counter-argument engagement, and actionable remedies grounded in ABA Model Rules and federal/state procedural frameworks. Catches Syllogism Broken (the legal conclusion does not follow from the rule applied to the facts — "the contract is void because the defendant acted in bad faith" skips the syllogism. Major premise: under Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205, every contract imposes an obligation of good faith and fair dealing. Minor premise: the defendant refused to process legitimate claims for 6 months despite contractual obligation. Conclusion: the defendant breached the implied covenant. If the conclusion does not follow from premise + facts, the reasoning is broken), Authority Ungrounded (citing fabricated or inaccurately characterized cases — LLMs hallucinate 30-40% of legal citations. "Johnson v. State (2021)" with no reporter volume, no page, no court is unverifiable. A Bluebook citation: "Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) — plausibility standard for pleadings." The holding must be accurately stated — mischaracterizing a holding is worse than no citation), Jurisdiction Blind (analyzing without identifying which court has jurisdiction and why — subject matter jurisdiction (federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, diversity under § 1332, supplemental under § 1367), personal jurisdiction (minimum contacts under Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)), governing substantive law under Erie, and choice-of-law analysis. "Under US law" is not jurisdiction — the US has 50 states, 94 federal districts, and 13 circuits), Counter Absent (ignoring adverse authority in violation of ABA Model Rule 3.3(a)(2) — counsel must disclose directly adverse controlling authority in the jurisdiction. "There are no counterarguments" means the analysis is incomplete. The opposing position must be stated at its strongest, then distinguished on facts, law, or policy), and Remedy Detached (concluding with "consult an attorney" instead of a specific procedural step — a remedy must name the procedural vehicle (Motion for Summary Judgment under FRCP 56, Complaint under FRCP 8, Appeal under FRAP 4), the statutory basis, the specific relief sought (injunction scope, damages theory, declaratory judgment), and the standard of review). Call once per legal issue or IRAC analysis