Motion Practice

Motion Practice

The formal process of asking a court for a ruling or order through a written filing. Motions run throughout a lawsuit, from the earliest pretrial stage to post-trial, and each one is governed by a specific procedural rule that sets out what it must contain and when it can be filed.

Memorandum of Law

The written legal argument attached to or contained within a motion, also called a brief. It states the rule or standard that governs, applies that standard to the facts, and cites the statutes and cases that support the request. A motion without sound legal authority behind it rarely succeeds.

Dispositive vs. Non-Dispositive Motion

A dispositive motion can end all or part of a case, such as a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. A non-dispositive motion resolves a smaller question along the way, such as a motion to compel discovery or a motion for a protective order. The distinction matters because dispositive motions carry higher stakes and stricter briefing standards.

Motion to Dismiss (FRCP 12(b)(6) / Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b))

A challenge to the legal sufficiency of the complaint, arguing that even if everything the plaintiff alleges is true, it still does not state a claim the law will recognize. In federal court it is governed by Rule 12(b)(6); in Florida state court, by Rule 1.140(b). It tests the pleading, not the evidence.

Motion for Summary Judgment (FRCP 56 / Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510)

A request for judgment before trial on the ground that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party (the “movant”) is entitled to win as a matter of law. Because it can resolve a case without a trial, it is one of the most consequential motions in civil litigation. Federal Rule 56 and Florida Rule 1.510 now apply the same standard.

Genuine Dispute of Material Fact

The test that decides a summary judgment motion. A fact is “material” if it could affect the outcome under the governing law, and a dispute is “genuine” if the evidence would let a reasonable jury find either way. If such a dispute exists, the case must go to trial; if it does not, the judge can rule without one.

The Summary Judgment Trilogy

Three 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., that together shaped the modern federal summary judgment standard, including how the burden shifts between the parties. In 2021 Florida amended Rule 1.510 to adopt this same federal standard, replacing a stricter Florida approach that had made summary judgment much harder to win.

Fabricated Authority (AI Hallucination)

When an AI model generates a citation, quotation, or rule that looks legitimate but does not exist or does not say what the model claims. Courts have sanctioned lawyers for filing briefs containing AI-invented cases, which is why every authority an AI produces has to be checked against the primary source before anyone relies on it.

Part 1: Draft a Motion With AI

Start with the Motion Drafter prompt. It will first ask you which court you are filing in, federal or Florida state, and which motion you want to draft. Choose a dispositive motion, one that can end the case: a motion for summary judgment or a motion to dismiss. Have the AI produce an outline first, then a full draft built on a short, made-up fact pattern. As the draft takes shape, notice its parts: the caption (the heading at the top that names the court and the parties and states the case number), the statement of facts, the argument section, the prayer for relief (the specific ruling you are asking the judge to enter), and the certificate of service (the statement confirming you sent the motion to every other party). Save the complete draft; you will be testing it in the next two Parts. If you want to see the jurisdictional contrast up front, run the Jurisdiction Comparator prompt to lay Federal Rule 56 beside Florida Rule 1.510 (or Rule 12(b)(6) beside Rule 1.140(b)) before you draft.

Part 2: Verify the Law the AI Cited

An AI draft can read like a polished brief and still cite a rule that does not exist or a case that does not say what the draft claims. Run the Authority Verifier prompt on your saved draft, then check its output yourself against the primary sources. For every federal rule, open Cornell LII and read the actual text of Rule 56 or Rule 12. For every Florida rule, open the Florida Bar’s rules page and read Rule 1.510 or Rule 1.140. For every case, search Google Scholar with the “Case law” filter and confirm that the case exists, the citation is right, and the holding matches what the draft says it does. Keep a short log of what held up and what did not, including anything the AI appears to have invented. This verification step is the reason lawyers have been sanctioned for skipping it.

Part 3: Compare With Real Motions Attorneys Filed

Now measure the AI’s work against the professional standard. If you drafted a federal motion, go to PACER and pull at least two real examples of the same motion type; if you drafted a Florida motion, use the Volusia County Clerk case search. (Federal attorneys file through CM/ECF and Florida attorneys file through the statewide Florida Courts E-Filing Portal; PACER and the Clerk’s site are where the public reads what they filed.) Put the AI draft next to the attorney filings and compare them on structure, tone, formatting, and how each one supports its argument with rules and case law. Then run the Counterargument Generator prompt to see how a competent opponent would attack your motion under the genuine-dispute-of-material-fact standard, which will sharpen your sense of where the AI draft is weak.

Part 4: Write Your Forum Post

Write a forum post of 400 to 600 words reflecting on what you found. Explain what the AI did well and where its draft fell short of the attorney filings. Address these questions directly: Does the AI’s motion read like a document a lawyer would actually file? What did it leave out or get wrong? How did its use of facts and legal authority differ from the real motions, and did the Authority Verifier surface anything that did not exist? Ground every point in specific examples from your draft, your verification log, and the filings you pulled.

Part 5: Share Chat Link

Include one AI chat link with a 1–2 sentence explanation of what the conversation shows and why you chose to share it.

Motion Drafter

You are helping me draft a civil litigation motion for a college Civil Litigation course. Before you write anything, ask me two questions: (1) whether the motion will be filed in federal court or Florida state court, and (2) which motion I want to draft, such as a motion for summary judgment or a motion to dismiss. After I answer, produce a detailed outline with these sections, adding one sentence on the function of each: caption, introduction and procedural background, statement of facts, argument (citing the governing rule and any supporting cases accurately), prayer for relief, and certificate of service. Identify the exact governing rule for the court I chose: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 or 12, or the Florida counterpart 1.510 or 1.140. Then ask whether I want a full draft. If I say yes, invent a short, simple fact pattern and write the complete motion in proper format.

This prompt combines role assignment with Socratic elicitation: by making the model ask about court and motion type before drafting, you stop it from guessing the jurisdiction and applying the wrong rule, which is the most common way these drafts go wrong.

Authority Verifier

Here is a motion draft: [paste your draft]. Do not rewrite it. Instead, produce a table with one row for every legal authority the draft cites, meaning each rule, statute, and case. For each row, give the citation exactly as it appears, state in one sentence what the draft uses it for, and add a confidence column flagging any authority you are not certain exists or are not certain says what the draft claims. List separately anything you suspect you may have generated without a reliable source. Do not reassure me that the citations are probably fine; your job is to surface everything I need to check myself.

This turns source grounding into a checklist and foregrounds responsible AI use: you make the model isolate every citation so you can verify each one yourself against Cornell LII, the Florida Bar rules page, or Google Scholar, since it cannot reliably confirm its own authorities.

Counterargument Generator

You are opposing counsel responding to this motion: [paste your draft]. The court applies the federal summary judgment standard from Celotex, Anderson, and Matsushita, which Florida also follows under Rule 1.510: summary judgment is granted only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Write the strongest response you can, identifying where the motion fails to show the absence of a genuine dispute, where its facts are thin, and where its legal argument overreaches. Be specific and adversarial rather than balanced.

Red-teaming asks the model to attack your motion instead of praising it, which consistently produces sharper analysis than a neutral review, because models tend to default toward telling you your work is good.

Jurisdiction Comparator

I am comparing how federal and Florida courts handle the same motion. Build a table comparing either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, or Federal Rule 12(b)(6) with Florida Rule 1.140(b), whichever I specify. Use rows for the governing standard, what the moving party must show, key deadlines or timing, and any notable differences. For each cell, cite the specific rule provision so I can confirm it against the actual rule text. Point out where Florida’s rule tracks the federal rule and where it diverges.

Structured output in a table forces the model to address each point of comparison systematically instead of writing a vague summary, and the instruction to cite each provision builds a verification step against the primary rule into the prompt.