---

name: import-legal-simulation-patrick-munro
description: Use when migrating the Patrick Munro legal simulation methodology into the mini-claude-for-legal format. This import adapter preserves adversarial scenario modelling — moot-court style argument construction, counterparty position mapping, and litigation outcome simulation — mapping it into the standard skill model. Suitable for dispute-risk assessment, negotiation preparation, and legal education contexts across common-law and civil-law jurisdictions.
license: MIT
metadata:
id: import.legal-simulation-patrick-munro
category: import
jurisdictions: [DIFC, ADGM, UK, UAE, LB, multi]
priority: P3
intent: [import, legal-simulation, dispute-modelling, negotiation, migration]
related: [import-mediation-dispute-analysis-jinzhe-tan, import-red-team-verifier-patrick-munro, import-vendor-due-diligence-patrick-munro, casesim-dispute-moot]
source: Louis — HAQQ Legal AI (github.com/sboghossian/mini-claude-for-legal)
version: "1.0"

Import: Legal Simulation (Patrick Munro)

What it does

This import adapter migrates a legal simulation skill modelled on the Patrick Munro adversarial methodology into the mini-claude-for-legal standard format. The Munro simulation approach treats legal analysis as a structured adversarial exercise: Claude plays both sides — claimant and respondent — constructing the strongest plausible argument for each position, then renders a simulated outcome with reasoning.

This is distinct from a standard risk-assessment. The simulation is designed to surface arguments that a skilled opponent would make, preparing the legal team for what they will actually face in negotiation, arbitration, or litigation — rather than what a neutral analysis would highlight.

Import config

Field	Source mapping	Default if absent
simulation_mode	Legacy mode field	bilateral (both sides)
forum	Legacy forum or venue	arbitration
governing_law	Legacy governing_law	DIFC (Munro's primary jurisdiction)
argument_depth	Legacy depth	full (all sub-arguments)
outcome_confidence	Legacy confidence_score boolean	true
output_format	Legacy format	moot_brief
persona	Legacy role	senior_barrister

Dry-run preview

IMPORT PREVIEW — legal-simulation-patrick-munro
Source shape    : Adversarial legal simulation (Munro methodology)
Mode            : bilateral (claimant + respondent positions)
Forum           : arbitration (DIFC default)
Governing law   : DIFC
Depth           : full
Output          : moot_brief (structured argument + simulated outcome)
Persona         : senior_barrister

Simulation structure (post-import)

Step 1 — Claimant's best case

• Identify the strongest legal grounds for the claimant
• State the cause of action, legal basis, factual support
• Anticipate and rebut the respondent's likely defence
• Quantify relief sought

Step 2 — Respondent's best case

• Identify the strongest defences and counterclaims
• Challenge the claimant's legal grounds
• Present alternative factual narrative where applicable
• Identify procedural bars (limitation, jurisdiction, standing)

Step 3 — Simulated outcome

• Weigh claimant vs respondent arguments
• Apply governing-law doctrine and precedent framework
• Render simulated outcome: Likely to succeed / Uncertain / Likely to fail
• Confidence level: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
• Key swing factors that could change the outcome

Step 4 — Strategic implications

• Settlement value range (if financial dispute)
• Negotiation leverage points for each side
• Recommended next steps

Jurisdictional notes

Jurisdiction	Simulation considerations
DIFC	Common law; DIFC Courts; precedent-based; English Court of Appeal decisions persuasive
ADGM	Common law; ADGM Courts; highly similar to DIFC approach
UAE onshore	Civil law; Federal Civil Procedure Code; no formal precedent doctrine
Lebanon	Civil law + commercial courts; French procedural influences; arbitration via Beirut Chamber
UK	Litigation vs arbitration path distinct; costs-shifting (loser pays) changes settlement calculus
KSA	Shariah-based; Board of Grievances jurisdiction; arbitration under Saudi Arbitration Law 34/2012

Use cases

• Pre-litigation risk assessment: simulate the opponent's arguments before filing or responding to a claim
• Negotiation preparation: identify the counterparty's leverage points before entering settlement talks
• Deal red-teaming: stress-test contractual positions from the other side's perspective
• Legal education / moot preparation: practise argument construction with AI-powered opposition

Failure modes

Error	Likely cause	Resolution
single_sided_output	Source only modelled one party	Override simulation_mode: bilateral
governing_law_mismatch	DIFC config used in civil-law context	Override governing_law and note doctrinal differences
outcome_overconfident	Legacy assigned HIGH confidence broadly	Calibrate: most disputes are MEDIUM confidence; flag swing factors
facts_insufficient	Sparse fact pattern	Request additional context before running simulation

Related skills

• [[import-mediation-dispute-analysis-jinzhe-tan]]
• [[import-red-team-verifier-patrick-munro]]
• [[import-vendor-due-diligence-patrick-munro]]
• [[casesim-dispute-moot]]
• [[review-legal-risk-generic]]