casesim-fact-pattern-builder

name	casesim-fact-pattern-builder
description	Use when building a realistic fact pattern for litigation training, moot court preparation, bar exam practice, or settlement scenario planning. Generates a complete synthetic or semi-synthetic case file from real or provided facts, with complicating factors (witness credibility, evidence gaps, jurisdictional issues), a supporting document set, and a difficulty score. Produces privileged and non-privileged document splits. Applicable across MENA and international forums.
license	MIT
metadata	{"id":"casesim.fact-pattern-builder","category":"casesim","jurisdictions":["__multi__"],"priority":"P1","intent":["litigation-prep","education","moot-court","bar-prep","scenario-planning"],"related":["casesim-client-q-and-a-prep","casesim-cross-examination-rehearsal","casesim-judge-bench-perspective","casesim-outcome-probability-estimator","academy-justinian-tutor","academy-litigation-game-coach"],"source":"Louis — HAQQ Legal AI (github.com/sboghossian/mini-claude-for-legal)","version":"1.0"}

Fact Pattern Builder — Realistic Case Files for Training and Scenario Planning

When to use this

Invoke when:

• A law school or moot court program needs a realistic fact pattern for student exercises
• A firm is training junior associates on a practice area using synthetic scenarios
• A bar candidate needs practice scenarios for exam preparation
• A litigation team wants to model settlement scenarios from a real case (using partial real facts, with synthetic additions for confidentiality)
• A mock arbitration preparation requires a complete case file
• An attorney wants to stress-test a legal theory against a developed fact pattern before committing to it

Inputs

Input	Required	Notes
Use case type	Yes	Training / bar prep / moot court / settlement modeling
Practice area	Yes	Contract, employment, real estate, tort, commercial, criminal, family, etc.
Jurisdiction	Yes	Primary forum; secondary if cross-border
Desired difficulty	Yes	1 (introductory) to 5 (distinction / complex)
Seed facts	Optional	Real or partial facts to build around (will be sanitized/synthetic in output)
Complicating factors	Optional	See list below
Output format	Optional	Full case file / summary only / document set only

Complicating factor options

These are added to increase realism and training value:

Factor	Description
Witness credibility issue	One key witness has a prior inconsistent statement or conflict of interest
Evidence gap	A document that should exist is missing or destroyed (raises adverse inference question)
Jurisdictional split	The contract has a foreign governing-law clause; local mandatory law may override
Parallel proceedings	A related arbitration or regulatory investigation is ongoing
Third-party liability	A non-party may be partly responsible
Corporate veil question	The contracting entity is a shell; a related company holds the real assets
Timing issue	A limitation period or notice requirement is close to being triggered or may have expired
Expert disagreement	The two expert witnesses reached opposite conclusions from the same data
Language/translation dispute	A key contract term means different things in the Arabic and English versions

Case file output structure

A complete fact pattern produced by this skill includes:

1. Case Overview

• Parties (plaintiff/claimant; defendant/respondent; third parties if any)
• Background narrative (how the dispute arose)
• Key dates timeline
• Forum and applicable law
• Brief statement of the claims and defenses

2. Document Set

A realistic supporting document set — all synthetic unless the user provided seed facts:

• The relevant contract(s) with specific provisions highlighted
• Key correspondence (email chains, letters, notices)
• Meeting minutes or board resolutions (where relevant)
• Financial documents (invoices, payment records, bank statements where relevant)
• Expert reports (summary form)
• Witness statements (first-person narrative format)

Privileged / non-privileged split: each document is labeled:

• Non-privileged (disclosable)
• Privileged — attorney-client (training: note why privilege applies)
• Privileged — work product (training: note why)
• Disputed (training: reason for dispute, arguments for both positions)

3. Difficulty Assessment

Each fact pattern is scored 1–5:

Score	Description
1 — Foundation	Single issue; clear liability; standard damages; no complicating factors; one jurisdiction
2 — Developing	Two issues; one factual dispute; standard procedural posture
3 — Intermediate	Multiple issues; at least one complicating factor; cross-jurisdictional element
4 — Advanced	Several interacting issues; credibility dispute; evidentiary challenges; jurisdictional complexity
5 — Expert	All of the above plus strategic uncertainty; multiple possible outcomes; high-stakes damages

4. Legal Issues Map

A structured list of the key legal issues the fact pattern raises, organized by:

• Primary issues (those the exercise is designed to develop)
• Secondary issues (ancillary; can be addressed for extra credit)
• Trap issues (designed to mislead; tests whether the student chases red herrings)

5. Model Answer / Teaching Notes

(For training use; withheld if the fact pattern is used for competitive assessment)

• How an experienced practitioner would analyze the primary issues
• Key arguments for each side
• Likely outcome range
• Where most students / trainees go wrong on this pattern

Practice-area-specific notes

Contract disputes (MENA context)

• Include a governing-law clause with a potential conflict between chosen law and mandatory local law
• For UAE: consider whether the UAE Civil Transactions Law mandatory provisions might override a foreign-law clause
• For DIFC: DIFC Contract Law (modeled on English common law) applies; consider whether the contract is entirely within DIFC or has onshore touchpoints

Employment disputes

• MENA employment law is highly regulatory; include a limited-term vs. unlimited-term contract ambiguity for UAE scenarios
• For KSA: Saudi Labour Law end-of-service benefits (Article 84 and related provisions) are a rich source of realistic disputes
• For Lebanon: the Lebanese Labour Code's mandatory indemnity provisions

Commercial fraud / dishonesty

• Include documentary trail that can be read two ways
• Include at least one witness whose testimony is internally consistent but inconsistent with the documents

Use cases — examples

Moot court competition (intermediate level)

A UAE-incorporated joint venture between a Beirut-based company and a Dubai-based company disputes the distribution of profits after one party claims the other diverted business opportunities. Governing law: UAE Civil Transactions Law. Complicating factors: a parallel arbitration in DIAC; a dispute about whether a key email is privileged.

Bar prep — Lebanese contract law (foundation)

A Lebanese contractor has not been paid for construction work. The employer claims the work was defective. The contract has a disputes clause requiring notice within 14 days of a complaint. The employer gave notice on day 17. Issues: breach of contract; defect claims; notice requirement; damages quantification.

Associate training — employment (advanced)

A Dubai law firm associate must advise on a termination scenario involving a UAE-national employee who was on a limited-term contract, terminated early, claims arbitrary dismissal under the UAE Labour Law, and has a parallel DIFC claim because the employment agreement references DIFC law. Expert disagreement on the correct annualized salary for compensation purposes.

Related skills

• [[casesim-client-q-and-a-prep]]
• [[casesim-cross-examination-rehearsal]]
• [[casesim-judge-bench-perspective]]
• [[casesim-outcome-probability-estimator]]
• [[academy-justinian-tutor]]
• [[academy-litigation-game-coach]]