| name | legal-memo |
| language | en |
| description | 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. |
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- Verify current validity (overruled, superseded, amended).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.
