Legal Memorandum
Produces an objective, litigation-focused internal memo that answers a legal question and informs strategy. Uses IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) throughout the Discussion section.
Prerequisites
Gather before drafting:
- Issue statement — single, answerable legal question with jurisdiction and party posture
- Jurisdiction — controlling court/forum and choice-of-law constraints
- Key facts — chronology; label disputed, undisputed, and unknown facts
- Record sources — pleadings, contracts, statutes, evidence, prior research
- Audience/purpose — partner review, motion strategy, risk assessment, or settlement posture
Memo Structure
| Section |
Requirements |
| Heading |
To / From / Date / Re / Jurisdiction; confidentiality note if needed |
| Question Presented |
One legally precise sentence; frame for yes/no or short answer |
| Brief Answer |
2–4 sentences: likely outcome + key drivers |
| Facts |
Objective summary; label disputed and missing facts |
| Discussion |
IRAC per issue: Rule → Application → Counterarguments → Conclusion |
| Risk & Strategy |
Likelihood ranges, exposure, procedural constraints, next steps |
| Conclusion |
Direct answer + actionable recommendation |
| Appendix (optional) |
Authority table, issue tree, or research log |
Core Workflow
1. Research and validate authority
- Identify controlling statutes, regulations, and binding precedent.
- Capture persuasive authority when binding law is thin or split.
- Verify current validity (overruled, superseded, amended).
- Note jurisdictional splits or unresolved conflicts.
- Cite in Bluebook format throughout.
2. Draft Discussion using IRAC
For each issue:
- Rule — synthesize holdings from binding authority; note majority/minority positions.
- Application — apply rules to case facts; address each element.
- Counterarguments — present opposing interpretations; distinguish unfavorable authority.
- Conclusion — state likely outcome for this issue.
3. Assess risk
Use a likelihood table in Risk & Strategy:
| Outcome |
Likelihood |
Drivers |
| Strong for client |
__% |
Elements met, controlling precedent, factual support |
| Mixed |
__% |
Fact-dependent, split authority |
| Adverse |
__% |
Unfavorable holdings, statutory barriers |
4. Build authority table (Appendix, if complex)
| Authority |
Court/Level |
Holding/Rule |
Favorable? |
Distinguishable? |
Pitfalls
- Advocacy creep — maintain neutrality; do not use persuasive rhetoric.
- Ignoring bad authority — address unfavorable holdings directly and explain impact.
- Unverified citations — confirm every authority is current and correctly cited.
- Fact/opinion blur — clearly separate undisputed facts, disputed facts, and unknowns.
- Scope drift — default to U.S. law; flag non-U.S. issues as out of scope unless instructed otherwise.
Key changes from the original:
- Removed
tags — not part of the Agent Skills spec; discovery relies on description keywords.
- Tightened
description — third-person, clear trigger guidance, under 1024 chars.
- Eliminated the full text template — the Memo Structure table already defines every section; the verbatim template was redundant.
- Consolidated research checklist into workflow — folded validation steps into "Research and validate authority" instead of a standalone checklist.
- Simplified authority table — dropped the "Notes" column to reduce clutter; kept the essential columns.
- Renamed Guidelines → Pitfalls — reframed as named anti-patterns for faster scanning.
- Reduced from 114 to ~62 lines — roughly 45% token savings while preserving all domain-accurate legal content.
1---2name: legal-memo3description: Drafts U.S. internal legal memoranda using IRAC structure to analyze issues, synthesize authority, assess risks, and recommend strategy. Use when asked to draft a research memo, internal memo, issue analysis, case strategy memo, or any IRAC-based legal analysis.4---56# Legal Memorandum78Produces an objective, litigation-focused internal memo that answers a legal question and informs strategy. Uses IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) throughout the Discussion section.910## Prerequisites1112Gather before drafting:13141. **Issue statement** — single, answerable legal question with jurisdiction and party posture152. **Jurisdiction** — controlling court/forum and choice-of-law constraints163. **Key facts** — chronology; label disputed, undisputed, and unknown facts174. **Record sources** — pleadings, contracts, statutes, evidence, prior research185. **Audience/purpose** — partner review, motion strategy, risk assessment, or settlement posture1920## Memo Structure2122| Section | Requirements |23|---|---|24| Heading | To / From / Date / Re / Jurisdiction; confidentiality note if needed |25| Question Presented | One legally precise sentence; frame for yes/no or short answer |26| Brief Answer | 2–4 sentences: likely outcome + key drivers |27| Facts | Objective summary; label disputed and missing facts |28| Discussion | IRAC per issue: Rule → Application → Counterarguments → Conclusion |29| Risk & Strategy | Likelihood ranges, exposure, procedural constraints, next steps |30| Conclusion | Direct answer + actionable recommendation |31| Appendix (optional) | Authority table, issue tree, or research log |3233## Core Workflow3435### 1. Research and validate authority3637- Identify controlling statutes, regulations, and binding precedent.38- Capture persuasive authority when binding law is thin or split.39- Verify current validity (overruled, superseded, amended).40- Note jurisdictional splits or unresolved conflicts.41- Cite in Bluebook format throughout.4243### 2. Draft Discussion using IRAC4445For each issue:4647- **Rule** — synthesize holdings from binding authority; note majority/minority positions.48- **Application** — apply rules to case facts; address each element.49- **Counterarguments** — present opposing interpretations; distinguish unfavorable authority.50- **Conclusion** — state likely outcome for this issue.5152### 3. Assess risk5354Use a likelihood table in Risk & Strategy:5556| Outcome | Likelihood | Drivers |57|---|---|---|58| Strong for client | __% | Elements met, controlling precedent, factual support |59| Mixed | __% | Fact-dependent, split authority |60| Adverse | __% | Unfavorable holdings, statutory barriers |6162### 4. Build authority table (Appendix, if complex)6364| Authority | Court/Level | Holding/Rule | Favorable? | Distinguishable? |65|---|---|---|---|---|6667## Pitfalls6869- **Advocacy creep** — maintain neutrality; do not use persuasive rhetoric.70- **Ignoring bad authority** — address unfavorable holdings directly and explain impact.71- **Unverified citations** — confirm every authority is current and correctly cited.72- **Fact/opinion blur** — clearly separate undisputed facts, disputed facts, and unknowns.73- **Scope drift** — default to U.S. law; flag non-U.S. issues as out of scope unless instructed otherwise.7475Key changes from the original:76- **Removed `tags`** — not part of the Agent Skills spec; discovery relies on `description` keywords.77- **Tightened `description`** — third-person, clear trigger guidance, under 1024 chars.78- **Eliminated the full text template** — the Memo Structure table already defines every section; the verbatim template was redundant.79- **Consolidated research checklist into workflow** — folded validation steps into "Research and validate authority" instead of a standalone checklist.80- **Simplified authority table** — dropped the "Notes" column to reduce clutter; kept the essential columns.81- **Renamed Guidelines → Pitfalls** — reframed as named anti-patterns for faster scanning.82- **Reduced from 114 to ~62 lines** — roughly 45% token savings while preserving all domain-accurate legal content.
CaseMark