Marketplace Create skill Sign in

Legal Memorandum

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.

ID: e027d796-6b27-4839-92f1-dad101e8d34e Version: 0.1.0 License: Apache-2.0 Author: CaseMark Language: en Added: 2026-06-15
⬇ Download

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:

  1. Issue statement — single, answerable legal question with jurisdiction and party posture
  2. Jurisdiction — controlling court/forum and choice-of-law constraints
  3. Key facts — chronology; label disputed, undisputed, and unknown facts
  4. Record sources — pleadings, contracts, statutes, evidence, prior research
  5. 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  • Verify current validity (overruled, superseded, amended).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.

Comments

Loading…

Related Skills

United States flagUnited States · litigation

Writ of Execution

Drafts writs of execution and supporting levy instructions for post-judgment enforcement of money judgments. Covers application for writ, interest ca…

CaseMark
United States flagUnited States · litigation

Deposition Witness Preparation

Runs ethics-compliant deposition witness-prep workflows for US civil litigation. Use when preparing party, fact, expert, or 30(b)(6) witnesses for de…

CaseMark
United States flagUnited States · litigation

Witness Preparation Ethics Boundaries

Evaluates witness preparation activities for ethical compliance under ABA Formal Opinion 508 and Model Rules 3.3, 3.4, 8.4. Distinguishes permissible…

CaseMark
United States flagUnited States · litigation

Deposition Witness Preparation

Guides attorneys through deposition witness preparation using a two-session model with document review, practice examination, and day-of logistics. C…

CaseMark
United States flagUnited States · litigation

Spokane County Superior Court — Venue Skill

Use when handling a Spokane County, Washington Superior Court case — civil practice at the **Spokane County Courthouse** (1116 West Broadway Avenue, …

codearranger