draft-brief

# Draft Brief Draft and format a court-ready filing and hand back the `.docx`. Briefs, motions, memoranda of law, oppositions, replies, appellate briefs. **Complaints and other pleadings are out of scope** — if asked to draft one, say so and stop. Read the shared guides first — they carry the method this skill assumes: `references/litigation-writing.md` (how to write it), `references/court-rules.md` (how to find the governing rules), `references/citations.md` (how every cite links), and `references/legal-docx.md` (rendering). The research method is below — it is the heart of this skill. ## Workflow 1. **Get up to speed.** Read any relevant uploads and consult the relevant record documents (`analyzeDocketReport` for posture and the operative filings, `analyzeDocketFiling` to read what they actually say). Every record fact you later assert carries a linked filing cite. 2. **Preliminary research.** Don't jump to conclusions about what to argue; research with Midpage to determine what the strongest arguments are and what makes procedural sense. 3. **Craft the research-based narrative structure.** Consult `references/litigation-writing.md`. Before doing even more research, settle on structure and arguments based on your preliminary research. 4. **MOST IMPORTANT: Exhaustive, iterative research per issue.** Make a research plan and follow it, using the method below. The goal is not to surface and analyze the obvious opinions only; you want to find the strongest, most favorable cases that will carry each argument the extra mile. Don't settle for any case supporting your proposition — find the favorable ones with devastating language, framings, facts, and the right outcomes. Each argument needs to be dense with case-law citations and compelling analysis. Find the cases and arguments that HURT and confront them head on — distinguish them or argue they are not determinative. 5. **Get the governing rules** per `references/court-rules.md`: case orders → judge's individual practices → local/ECF rules → federal baseline. Capture length limits, font/margins/spacing, required sections, caption form, certificates, TOC/TOA triggers — each linked to its source. Surface conflicts (the more specific layer controls; show both). 6. **Write it** per `references/litigation-writing.md`: theme stated up front, point headings that argue, rule synthesis not book reports, quotes woven into prose, adverse authority confronted head-on. 7. **Render** with the `brief` profile (`references/legal-docx.md`). Thread any rule-set spacing/font/margin through `D.builders("brief", { lineSpacing })`; defaults stand when rules are silent. Validate the rendered file against the verifiable requirements (length, font, margins, spacing, required sections, certificates). ## Research with Midpage (the method) All law comes from the Midpage tools this session. `search` finds candidates; `findInOpinion` previews; **`analyzeOpinion` is what permits a citation** — no case is cited without it. - **Frame before you search.** Pin the forum (court, circuit, state) — it controls what binds and how to filter. Reduce each question to the operative element actually in dispute ("does an eight-month delay defeat likely irreparable harm in the Ninth Circuit?" — not "can we get an injunction?"). Each distinct issue gets its own searches and its own section. For every issue, write down what the other side will argue — that defines half your research targets. - **Search semantic, parallel, filtered.** Concept- and proposition-style queries, never boolean. One issue per query, up to four in parallel. Filter to the forum (`jurisdictionType`, `circuits`/`courts`/`states`, dates when recency matters); binding authority first, persuasive labeled as such. If you filter `publishStatus`, run a parallel `unknown` query too (for California, default to `published` plus `unknown`). Need exact wording? Stop guessing in `search` — run `findInOpinion` on a promising case. - **Triage before you spend analysis.** `highlights` show why a case matched — previews only, never quote them. `treatment` gauges whether it's good law and how heavily relied on. `findInOpinion` is the free double-click before an `analyzeOpinion` call. - **Branch from the best case.** When a strong case surfaces, mine it: `analyzeOpinion` it and pull the authorities the opinion itself leans on (the rule it states usually quotes the case you actually want); then search its key holding language as its own query to find later cases applying it. A case the court's own opinions repeatedly cite is worth more than three you found cold. - **Iterate until it's scorched earth.** Re-query each issue with new framings — the best case's holding language, the opposing side's framing, narrower fact patterns, the remedy angle — until new queries keep returning the same leading cases. That saturation is the signal you've mapped the field; anything less is settling. - **The `analyzeOpinion` gate, on every case you cite.** Pass a `question` naming the exact element. Check **`doesNotAddress` first** — if your point is listed, the case does not stand for it, however close the language looks. Build sentences from `supportedPropositions` (each carries a cite-ready proposition, a verified quote, and a `deeplinkURL`). Lead with `core_holding` over `supporting_analysis`; never sell `background` as the holding. Carry `scope` qualifiers into your sentence. A concurrence or dissent (`opinionSection`) is never presented as the court's holding. Surface negative `treatment` honestly — if you must use a caution/negative case, say so. - **Research the other side as hard as your own.** For every issue, run searches framed from the opposing position; identify the case they will lead with and `analyzeOpinion` it too — that's what step 4's confrontation is built from. - **Silence and splits are findings.** No controlling authority on point, or a genuine split, gets reported as such — never papered over with an off-point or out-of-jurisdiction cite. ## Scope discipline - **Format, required sections, and limits are always in scope.** When a rule forces a change, name the rule and link the source. - **Drafting substance** (argument, facts) is in scope when drafting from scratch or when asked. - **Working from the user's existing draft: do not rewrite their arguments, reorder their theories, or change their voice** unless they ask or a rule requires it (get sign-off before cutting argument to meet a limit). Note substantive problems you spot as a brief, separate observation — never silently implement them. ## Hard rules - Never recall a rule, holding, quote, or record fact from memory. Rules come from sources retrieved this session; case law from `analyzeOpinion`; record facts from `analyzeDocketFiling`. No invented case, quote, pin cite, statute, or rule, ever. - Honor `doesNotAddress`, distinguish holdings from dicta and majority from concurrence/dissent, surface negative treatment. - The attorney owns the filing. Flag open items and judgment calls plainly; never imply the document is filing-ready without their review. - Brief-writing is research-led. Do thorough, iterative research with Midpage.