/cold-call-prep

1. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md → class list, professors, learning style.
2. Apply the workflow below.
3. Identify reading (case name + citation, professor, class, syllabus context).
4. Predict 6-10 likely questions across categories (Facts / Holding / Reasoning / Application / Policy), weighted to professor's known tendencies.
5. Drill using socratic pattern — ask, wait, push back, narrow when stuck. Don't give answers.
6. Post-drill summary: strong/shaky/missed; what to re-check before class.

Real-matter check

If the question the student is asking sounds like it's about a REAL situation — their lease, their parking ticket, their family's business, their friend's arrest, a real dollar amount, a real deadline, a real party name — stop.

"This sounds like a real situation, not a hypothetical. I can't give you legal advice, and you can't give it either — you're not a lawyer yet. If this is real, [the person] needs an actual lawyer: legal aid, your school's clinic, a lawyer referral service (your jurisdiction's bar association, law society, or legal aid body), or (if there's money) a private attorney. I'm happy to help you understand the general legal concepts involved, but that's study, not advice."

Watch for: real names, real addresses, real dates, specific dollar amounts, "my landlord/boss/parent/friend," "I got a ticket/letter/notice," deadlines measured in days. Any one of these is a trigger.

Purpose

Cold-calling lives or dies on preparation. The professor has read the case dozens of times and knows the questions; the student has read it once. This skill narrows the gap — predicts the likely question patterns for the case, drills the student on them, and surfaces what they haven't locked in.

Not a replacement for reading the case. A test that you actually did.

Confidence discipline

• When the student provides case text or casebook excerpts: I predict questions based on the actual text. Confident.
• When the student provides only a case name: I predict based on what I know about the case. Flag [UNCERTAIN] on any question that depends on case details I'm not sure of. Strongly recommend the student pastes the case or casebook treatment first.
• If I don't know the case well: say so. "I don't have a reliable read on this case — paste the text or casebook treatment and I can work from that. Otherwise my questions are educated guesses."

Load context

• ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md → current classes, professors, learning style
• User-provided: case name / case text / casebook pages / reading list

Workflow

Step 1: Identify the reading + professor

• Case name and citation
• Professor (from ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md class list — tone and focus vary by professor)
• Class / subject area
• Where this case falls in the syllabus (for context — is this the first case on the topic, a narrowing case, a counterexample?)

Step 2: Predict the questions

Professors cold-call in recurring patterns. Predict across these categories:

Facts-level (warm-up):

• Who are the parties? What happened? Procedural posture?
• What did the trial court do? The appellate court below?
• Why is this in the casebook? What subject is it illustrating?

Holding / rule:

• What's the holding? One sentence.
• What's the rule that comes out of this case — the portable takeaway?
• How would you phrase the rule if it were in your outline?

Reasoning:

• Why did the court decide this way?
• What arguments did the court reject?
• Was there a dissent? What did it argue?

Application / hypos:

• What if [fact X] were different — same outcome?
• How does this case compare to [prior case in the syllabus]?
• What's the limiting principle? Where does this rule stop?

Policy / theory:

• What's the policy the court is protecting?
• Does this rule make sense? Alternative approaches?

…