| name | legal-memo |
| title | Legal Memorandum |
| 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. |
| author | CaseMark |
| author_url | https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/legal-memo |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | us |
| practice | litigation |
| language | en |
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- Verify current validity (overruled, superseded, amended).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.
- — state likely outcome for this issue.
