← All Trainings

Copilot Immersion — Legal — Trainer Guide

Trainer Guide — Legal-focused Copilot Immersion covering the GCSE prompting framework, Work IQ, document comparison, deep legal research with the Researcher agent, Copilot in Word & Outlook, and building a contract review agent.

⚠️ Disclaimer

All prompts, scenarios, examples, and referenced entities are fictional and provided only for training and demonstration purposes. Do not use this material for decision-making, reporting, or external distribution.

📝 Session Details

Duration: ~60 minutes
Format: Presentation · Live demos · Hands-on exercises
Level: 100-Level — Legal Focused
Audience: Legal professionals, in-house counsel, paralegals, and compliance teams who want to apply Copilot to contract review, legal research, document comparison, and agent-based workflows.
License key: Chat Basic = available to all M365 users • M365 Copilot Premium = requires M365 Copilot license
Classification: Trainer Version — For Trainer Use Only, Not for Distribution to Participants

⏲

Overview

Session Timing Breakdown

Timing Session Plan (~60 minutes) ▼

Time	Section	Format
0:00 – 0:03	Getting Started & Mobile App	Quick demo
0:03 – 0:10	Work IQ & What Copilot Knows About You	Live demo · Discussion
0:10 – 0:20	Comparing Documents (MSA V1 vs V2)	Live demo · Hands-on
0:20 – 0:35	Copilot Researcher — Deep Legal Analysis	Live demo
0:35 – 0:42	Copilot in Word — Summarize & Simplify	Live demo · Hands-on
0:42 – 0:48	Copilot in Outlook — Email Drafting	Live demo
0:48 – 0:58	Building a Contract Review Agent	Walkthrough · Hands-on
0:58 – 1:00	Wrap-up & Q&A	Open discussion

📝 Trainer Tip

The Researcher agent demo (Section 4) requires processing time. Start it live and let it run while you talk through the results. Have a pre-completed Researcher report ready in Word as a backup in case of connectivity issues. Section 7 (Agent Builder) is the crowd-pleaser — make sure you have the NDA Reference Standard and Agent Configuration docs ready before the session.

📱

Section 1

Getting Started with Copilot

Exercise M365 Copilot Mobile App ▼

Where to use: M365 Copilot Mobile App

Open the M365 Copilot mobile app and try this prompt to see how Copilot prepares you for your day:

Prompt

Prep me for my day

📝 Trainer Tip

Open the mobile app on your own device and demo this live. Show how Copilot surfaces upcoming meetings, pending emails, and tasks. This is a quick, high-impact opener that hooks the audience immediately. Mention that the mobile app uses the same AI as the web version.

💡

Section 2

Work IQ — What Copilot Knows About You

Exercise Microsoft 365 Work IQ ▼

Where to use: M365 Copilot Chat (m365copilot.com)

Prompt

What do you know about me? Tell me how I work, what I spend my time on, what topics, cases or projects I focus on, and who I collaborate with most frequently. Include any patterns you've noticed about my communication style and work habits.

📝 Trainer Tip

This prompt usually gets a strong reaction. Copilot pulls from emails, meetings, documents, and Teams chats to build a surprisingly detailed profile. Use this moment to discuss enterprise data protection — emphasize that Copilot only sees what the user already has access to. Requires a Premium license for the full Work IQ experience.

Bonus Teaching Copilot Your Preferences ▼

Copilot can remember your preferences across sessions. Try telling it to remember something specific to your legal work:

Memory Example

Remember that I always want legal citations formatted in Bluebook style when you draft legal documents for me.

📝 Trainer Tip

Mention that users can tell Copilot to “Remember X” or “Forget Y” at any time. This is powerful for legal professionals who need consistent citation styles, jurisdiction defaults, or formatting preferences. Show the Memory settings page if time permits.

📄

Section 3

Comparing Documents

Exercise Comparing Documents in M365 Copilot ▼

Where to use: M365 Copilot Chat (m365copilot.com)

This exercise compares two versions of a Master Supply Agreement to identify material changes. Upload both documents or use the / file picker to reference them from SharePoint/OneDrive.

Prompt

Compare /Master_Supply_Agreement_V1_Original.docx and /Master_Supply_Agreement_V2_Revised.docx. Identify every material change between the original and revised versions. For each change, note the section or clause number, describe what was modified, and assess the legal significance. Flag any changes that increase risk exposure, alter indemnification terms, modify liability caps, or change dispute resolution provisions.

📝 Trainer Tip

This is a signature moment. The comparison highlights material differences including: expanded ESG/sustainability requirements, new indemnification caps, enhanced data privacy provisions (CCPA), extended insurance requirements, and new termination triggers for ESG non-compliance. Let Copilot generate the analysis, then walk through 2–3 key findings to show how it identified substantive legal changes vs. cosmetic edits.

Tip: If using the / file picker, type the first few letters of the filename and select from the picker. Alternatively, upload both files directly.

🔍

Section 4

Copilot Researcher Agent — Deep Legal Analysis

Exercise Deep Legal Research with the Researcher Agent ▼

Where to use: M365 Copilot Chat (m365copilot.com) — Select Researcher

M365 Copilot Premium — Researcher agent requires a Copilot license

This exercise uses the Researcher agent to conduct a comprehensive legal analysis of the FDA’s Food Traceability Rule. The Researcher will search the web, compile findings, and produce a structured legal memorandum.

Prompt

Conduct a comprehensive legal analysis of the FDA's Food Traceability Rule (FSMA Section 204(d), 21 CFR Part 1, Subpart S), which established new traceability recordkeeping requirements for foods on the Food Traceability List. The federal compliance deadline is July 20, 2028. Analyze this regulation's specific impact on a major U.S. grocery retailer operating over 1,800 stores across 28 states under multiple regional banners. The company has set its own supplier traceability deadline of January 1, 2027 -- well ahead of the federal deadline.

Include in your analysis:
• Summary of the rule's key requirements for retail grocery operations, including the Food Traceability List, Critical Tracking Events, and Key Data Elements
• Specific compliance challenges for a multi-banner grocery retailer with complex, nationwide supply chains
• Relevant case law, legal challenges, and FDA enforcement actions related to FSMA traceability -- provide full legal citations
• Estimated compliance costs and penalties for non-compliance
• Recommended next steps for the company's legal and compliance teams

Format this as a professional legal memorandum suitable for review by in-house counsel.

After entering the prompt, select “Long” for the research depth. Say “Go ahead” or answer Researcher’s questions with your preferences.

📝 Trainer Tip

The Researcher agent typically takes 2–4 minutes to complete. Start it live and narrate what’s happening: “Researcher is searching for FSMA regulations, case law, FDA enforcement actions, and compliance guidance. It will compile everything into a structured legal memo.”

Have a pre-completed Researcher report open in another tab as a fallback. When the results arrive, highlight how it includes legal citations, compliance timelines, and actionable next steps — the kind of memo that would normally take a paralegal hours to compile.

Key talking point: Copilot can’t replace legal judgment, but it dramatically accelerates the research phase. The attorney still reviews, validates citations, and applies professional judgment.

📄

Section 5

Copilot in Word — Summarize & Simplify

Exercise Working with the Researcher Report in Word ▼

Where to use: Copilot in Word (open the Researcher report)

M365 Copilot Premium — Copilot in Word requires a Copilot license

Open the Researcher report in Word.
Select “View More” and click on each heading to explore.

Prompt 5a — Executive Summary

Summarize the key compliance requirements, deadlines, and risks in this legal memorandum as a bulleted executive brief of no more than 10 points.

Prompt 5b — Plain Language Rewrite

Rewrite this section in plain language that a non-attorney store operations manager could easily understand and act on.

For Prompt 5b, select and highlight a particularly technical paragraph first, then use the prompt.

📝 Trainer Tip

These two prompts show complementary Word capabilities. Prompt 5a creates an executive summary that could go directly to leadership. Prompt 5b demonstrates the “translate legalese” use case — always a crowd favorite with legal audiences.

Key talking point: “How many of you spend time writing executive summaries or translating legal language for business stakeholders? This is 30 seconds instead of 30 minutes.”

📧

Section 6

Copilot in Outlook — Email Drafting

Exercise Drafting an Email with Copilot in Outlook ▼

Where to use: Copilot in Outlook (New Email → Open Copilot)

M365 Copilot Premium — Copilot in Outlook requires a Copilot license

Prompt

Draft an email to my leadership team summarizing the key findings from /Legal Analysis for FDA Food Traceability Rule.docx for a non-legal executive audience. Present the information in short, consumable bullets focused on: business impact, compliance deadlines, estimated costs, and recommended next steps. Keep it under 200 words and avoid legal jargon.

📝 Trainer Tip

This ties the whole session together: the Researcher creates the memo, Word refines it, and Outlook communicates it to stakeholders. The / file reference pulls the Researcher report directly into the email draft context.

Key talking point: “In one session, Copilot helped you research a regulation, summarize the findings, simplify the language, and draft the communication to leadership. That’s the Copilot workflow in action.”

🤖

Section 7

Building a Contract Review Agent

Exercise Build a Contract Review Agent in Agent Builder ▼

Where to use: Agent Builder at m365copilot.com

M365 Copilot Premium — Agent Builder requires a Copilot license

Follow these steps to create your own NDA Contract Review Agent:

Step	Action	Details
1	Create the Agent	Open Agent Builder from m365copilot.com
2	Provide Basic Details	Name: NDA Review Agent Description: Reviews NDA contracts to ensure they follow Zava Contract Reference Standards.
3	Specify Agent Instructions	Copy the instructions from the Agent Configuration document (see below)
4	Add Knowledge Source(s)	Upload the Zava NDA Reference Standard v1.1 document from SharePoint or directly
5	Review and Test	Test with the BluePeak NDA or HarborPoint Mutual NDA sample documents

📝 Trainer Tip

This is the centerpiece of the session for many audiences. Walk through the Agent Builder step-by-step. Build the agent live, paste the instructions, upload the knowledge document, then test with the BluePeak NDA. The agent should identify key deviations from Zava’s standard positions.

Key talking point: “This agent can now be shared with your entire legal team. Every NDA review starts with a consistent, standards-based first pass. The attorney still makes the final call, but the initial screening is done in seconds instead of hours.”

Reference Agent Configuration — Instructions to Copy ▼

Copy these instructions into the Agent Builder’s “Instructions” field:

Agent Instructions

## ROLE
You are Zava Legal's NDA first-pass reviewer.
Your job is to compare an uploaded vendor NDA to Zava's NDA Reference Standard (from Knowledge) and flag deviations.

## SCOPE
- Do NOT approve/reject agreements. Provide an assistive review only.
- Do NOT provide external legal advice or cite external law.
- Use Zava NDA Reference Standard in Knowledge as the authority. If you can't find a standard, say so.
- Do not invent missing clauses. If it's not in the NDA, mark it MISSING.
- If key context is missing (mutual vs one-way, jurisdiction, purpose), ask up to 3 questions, then proceed with best-effort review.

## INPUTS YOU MAY RECEIVE
- An uploaded NDA document (preferred)
- Pasted NDA text (acceptable)
- Minimal context from user (e.g., "vendor NDA, mutual")

## REVIEW STEPS
1) Identify basics:
- Is it an NDA? Mutual or one-way?
- Parties, purpose, term length, governing law/venue (if present)

2) Extract these NDA sections (use "Not found" if missing):
- Confidential Information definition + exclusions
- Use limitation / purpose restriction
- Permitted disclosures (representatives / need-to-know)
- Standard of care (how it must be protected)
- Term (agreement term)
- Survival (how long confidentiality lasts after termination/expiry)
- Remedies (injunctive relief, penalties)
- Return/Destruction requirements
- Governing law / venue

3) Compare each section to Zava's NDA Reference Standard and tag:
- OK = matches Zava standard
- MISSING = required by Zava standard but absent
- NEED ATTENTION = deviates from Zava standard or triggers a red flag

4) For every MISSING or NEED ATTENTION item:
- Explain the issue in 1-2 sentences
- State Zava's preferred position (from the standard)
- If the standard lists a fallback, include it
- If it's a red flag, label it "Escalate"

## OUTPUT FORMAT (ALWAYS)
### Executive Summary (max 4 bullets)
- Overall posture (routine vs needs escalation)
- Top 2-3 issues only

### Findings (by clause)
For each clause:
- Clause:
- Tag: OK / MISSING / NEED ATTENTION
- Issue: (1 sentence)
- Zava Standard: (preferred + fallback if applicable)
- Suggested fix: (short)

### Questions for the business (optional, max 3)
- Only ask if needed to assess a deviation

## PRIORITY CHECKS (DON'T MISS THESE)
- If survival language is absent → tag MISSING
- If destruction requires deleting internal notes/analyses/derivatives → tag NEED ATTENTION + Escalate

Reference NDA Reference Standard — Knowledge Document Summary ▼

The Zava NDA Reference Standard v1.1 is uploaded as the agent’s knowledge source. Key sections include:

Section	Key Points
Required Clauses	Confidential Information definition, use limitation, standard exclusions, term & survival, governing law
Standard Positions	Broad CI definition (includes derivatives), 3-year survival preferred, mutual NDAs when bilateral, injunctive relief for breach, need-to-know disclosure
Acceptable Fallbacks	2-year term (minimum), major U.S. commercial jurisdiction, written-only CI with clear marking, retention of compliance copies on return/destroy
Red Flags	Unilateral NDA with Zava disclosing, sub-2-year terms, broad affiliate disclosure, mandatory destruction of internal notes, non-U.S. venue

Test Documents Sample NDAs for Agent Testing ▼

Use these sample NDAs to test the agent. Each has different characteristics that the agent should identify:

Document	Type	Key Features to Identify
BluePeak NDA	One-way (Zava is Recipient)	Vendor evaluation context, standard exclusions, injunctive relief clause, return/destroy provision, no explicit survival period
HarborPoint Mutual NDA	Mutual	Technology partnership context, 3-year term, 3-year survival, trade secret extension, Washington state governing law, compliance copy retention

📝 Trainer Tip

Start with the BluePeak NDA — it has a missing survival clause that the agent should flag as MISSING. Then test with HarborPoint, which is closer to Zava’s standard and should return mostly OK tags. The contrast between the two demonstrates the agent’s ability to differentiate quality.

📎

Resources

Working Files & Downloads

Files Demo Files for This Session ▼

File	Used In	Description
Master_Supply_Agreement_V1_Original.docx	Section 3	Original MSA between Contoso Grocers and Pacific Fresh Produce
Master_Supply_Agreement_V2_Revised.docx	Section 3	Revised MSA with expanded ESG, data privacy, and sustainability provisions
BluePeak NDA.docx	Section 7	One-way NDA — Zava as Recipient from BluePeak Solutions
HarborPoint Mutual NDA.docx	Section 7	Mutual NDA between Zava and HarborPoint Systems
Zava NDA Reference Standard v1.1.docx	Section 7	Reference standard for NDA review — uploaded as agent knowledge
Zava NDA Review Agent Configuration.docx	Section 7	Agent instructions for the NDA Review Agent

Download demo files: aka.ms/contract-review-agent

🎓

Reference

The GCSE Framework

Framework Goal · Context · Source · Expectations ▼

The GCSE framework is the 4-part prompt structure that gets the best results:

Mnemonic: Giraffes Can See Everything

Element	What It Means	Legal Example
Goal	What you want Copilot to do	“Compare these two contract versions…”
Context	Background: audience, purpose, constraints	“…for a supply agreement between a retailer and a produce supplier…”
Source	Where to pull data from: files, documents, or pasted text	“…using /MSA_V1.docx and /MSA_V2.docx…”
Expectations	Format, tone, length, output style	“…flag changes that increase risk exposure or alter indemnification terms.”

Remember: There are no “wrong” prompts! Natural, conversational language works great. The more specific context you provide, the better Copilot’s response will be. Experiment and iterate — you can always refine your prompt based on the results.