With the tools you actually have.
Most offices have, at best, a licensed Copilot tenant. That is enough to borrow the logic of the best legal skills, and enough to use AI to check your own work.
Copilot can’t install a skill. It can follow one.
Claude for Legal publishes its skills as plain-text instructions: about 100 open-source skills on GitHub (Apache 2.0), each a readable SKILL.md file. Of the three big legal offerings, only Claude publishes its skills this way. None ships a prosecution workflow, but the litigation and verification skills port well because they are mostly written instructions.
Start in the litigation-legal folder at github.com/anthropics/claude-for-legal.
Find it in Claude
Open the SKILL.md. It reads like a procedure, because it is one.
Keep the logic
- Keep: the rules, the step order, the output table.
- Drop: file-system steps, connectors, scheduled agents.
Rebuild it in Copilot
- A saved prompt for one-off tasks
- An Agent Builder agent (about 8,000 characters of instructions)
- Copilot in Word for open drafts
Keep these, whatever tool you paste them into.
Click a rule for the sentence to put in the prompt.
One parent agent and two connected agents.
The three-skill design from Part 3 maps onto Copilot Studio’s multi-agent pattern without changing the instructions.
| In Claude | In Copilot Studio |
|---|---|
| Prosecutor’s analysis skill | Parent agent holding the same instructions |
| General Statutes skill | Child agent grounded on a SharePoint library of statute files |
| Pattern Jury Instructions skill | Child agent grounded on a second library of instruction files |
| One skill calling another | Parent hands off to a connected agent by its description |
- Load the files into two SharePoint libraries
- Create a child agent for each library
- Create the parent agent with the analysis instructions
- Connect both child agents and test on a real report
- Give each child agent its own library; Microsoft advises against sharing sources.
- Describe each child agent clearly; the parent routes by its description.
- Test that retrieval returns element text verbatim.
Source: Microsoft Learn, Copilot Studio multi-agent patterns and knowledge sources documentation (2026).
Claude found my prior mistakes.
I ran a 404(b) motion I wrote as an ADA through two tools: a tabular review skill that builds a table of every authority cited, and a CourtListener connector that pulls each opinion to verify the citation. The motion was State v. Sellers (2013): human-drafted, granted, and upheld on appeal, with each of these errors in it.
Builds an Excel table from a set of data. Similar tabular reviews are available in most legal AI products.
Uses the CourtListener connector to pull opinions and check citations, when possible.
Misattributed quoteState v. WilliamsA real case, a real-sounding quote, the wrong source.+
The Supreme Court “has held only that ‘the trial court must find the evidence to be substantial.’” Williams, 307 N.C. 452, 454 (1983).
That sentence is from State v. Haskins, a Court of Appeals case (104 N.C. App. at 680). Williams is a heroin-possession sufficiency case with no 404(b) discussion.
Attribute the quote to Haskins. For the Supreme Court standard, cite State v. Stager, 329 N.C. 278, 303 (1991).
Case holds the oppositeState v. WardCited “See also” for a rule the court rejected on those facts.+
Cited “See also” for the rule that a dismissed prior charge does not bar 404(b) evidence of the act.
Ward’s prior charges were dismissed by the judge for insufficient evidence. The court treated that as an acquittal, excluded the evidence, and ordered a new trial.
Cut it, or cite “But see” and distinguish: the Sellers prior was a DA dismissal, which Flaugher allows.
Wrong cite for the reversalState v. ElliottQuoting a dissent without the history that made it the law.+
Quotes Judge Lewis’s dissent at 288, then cites the Supreme Court’s reversal as “Id. at 644.”
“Id.” points back to the Court of Appeals opinion; the reversal is a separate case at 352 N.C. 663. The first dissent quote is at 287.
137 N.C. App. 282, 287–88 (2000) (Lewis, J., dissenting), rev’d per curiam, 352 N.C. 663, 664 (2000).
Wrong yearState v. CoffeyEasy to miss. Easy for opposing counsel or the court to catch.+
326 N.C. 268, 278 (1980), cited twice for the “rule of inclusion.”
Decided in 1990. The quote runs across pages 278–79, and the S.E.2d parallel is missing.
326 N.C. 268, 278–79, 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990).
Source: citations checked against opinion text on CourtListener, September 2026.