Marketplace Pricing Download

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: us.litigation.legal-memo Version: 0.1.0 License: Apache-2.0 Author: CaseMark Language: en Added: 2026-05-27
⬇ 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  • Verify current validity (overruled, superseded, amended).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.

Related Skills

United States flagUnited States · litigation

Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Representative Deposition

Manages Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative deposition workflows — drafting notice topics with reasonable particularity, building examination outl…

CaseMark
United States flagUnited States · litigation

30(b)(6) Corporate Representative Deposition

Guides taking and defending Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative depositions. Drafts topic lists with reasonable particularity, builds examination …

CaseMark
United States flagUnited States · litigation

Abstract of Judgment

Drafts a recordable Abstract of Judgment to create a judgment lien on a debtor's real property. Extracts party names, monetary components, and judgme…

CaseMark
United States flagUnited States · litigation

Amicus Brief

Drafts and analyzes U.S. appellate amicus curiae briefs for non-parties with Rule 29/Rule 37 compliance, unique perspective development, and Bluebook…

CaseMark
United States flagUnited States · litigation

Amicus Coalition Management

Manages end-to-end workflow for multi-organization amicus coalition briefs in appellate courts. Covers single-pen drafting governance, position align…

CaseMark