Review a design services contract for professional liability risks
A clause-by-clause risk review of a client contract for an architecture or engineering firm, with suggested redlines and insurability flags.
The prompt
Review a client contract for my architecture or engineering firm and flag professional liability risks.
Contract text: [PASTE, or the key clauses]
Our role: [prime design consultant / subconsultant / design-build partner]
Project and client type: [e.g. "private developer, mixed-use building", "public agency, bridge rehabilitation"]
Our insurance: [professional liability limits and deductible, general liability - and whether we have the policy wording]
Fee size: [AMOUNT - to weigh risk against reward]
Deal-breakers for my firm: [e.g. "no duty to defend", "must have limitation of liability"]
Check these clauses and explain each risk in plain English:
1. Standard of care: is it the ordinary professional standard, or raised by words like "best," "highest," "guarantee," "warrant," or "fit for purpose"?
2. Indemnification: limited to our negligence and proportionate to fault, or broad, including any duty to defend that insurance may not cover.
3. Limitation of liability: present, amount, and whether it ties to fee or insurance.
4. Consequential damages waiver: mutual or missing.
5. Certifications we're asked to sign and whether they go beyond our knowledge.
6. Construction-phase duties that could imply control of means and methods or jobsite safety.
7. Ownership and reuse of instruments of service, and electronic file transfer.
8. Termination, suspension, payment terms, and dispute resolution.
9. Requirements tied to code compliance, cost estimates, or schedule guarantees.
Return a table: Clause | Risk level (high / medium / low) | Why it matters | Suggested redline language | Fallback position. Then list items to send to our insurance broker for an insurability check.
This is a general risk review, not legal advice. Have an attorney and our insurance broker review high-risk clauses before signing.
Highlighted [brackets] are blanks to replace with your own details.
Fill in the blanks and use this promptMore Legal & Compliance prompts
What to fill in
- PASTE, or the key clauses
- AMOUNT - to weigh risk against reward
- e.g. "no duty to defend", "must have limitation of liability"
How this prompt is built
This prompt follows the Few-Shot structure (Few-shot prompting). A few-shot prompt includes one or more worked examples of the input and the output you want, so the model can copy the pattern instead of guessing it.
Related prompts
- Check my AI workflow for privacy and data-protection risksMaps the personal and confidential data in an AI-assisted process and flags privacy and compliance risks to fix before launch.
- Write a suspicious activity report (SAR) narrativeA clear, chronological SAR narrative that answers who, what, when, where, why, and how, ready for compliance review.
- Assess subrecipient risk and plan grant monitoringA risk assessment and monitoring plan for organizations you pass grant funds to, scaled to their risk and aligned to your award terms.
- Run a HIPAA security risk assessment for a small practiceA structured security risk analysis covering where ePHI lives, threats, likelihood and impact ratings, and a documented remediation plan.