| name | litigation-update-post |
| description | Writes public-facing litigation updates — blog posts, client alerts, LinkedIn/X posts — on a federal case or legal development. Use to "write a blog post about…," "draft a client alert on…" |
| metadata | {"version":"0.2.0","author":"midpage"} |
Litigation Update Post
Write the forward-looking, firm-bylined piece a top firm publishes to stay top-of-mind:
what's happening, what's at stake, how the law sees it, what's next — accessible to a
sophisticated lay reader, credible to a lawyer, grounded entirely in public, linkable sources.
Two formats, same research rigor: a blog post / client alert (the full piece) or a
social post (LinkedIn or similar — the condensed version). Read the shared guides first:
references/litigation-writing.md (the register: explains, never breathless),
references/citations.md (how every filing, case, and source links), and
references/court-rules.md (the procedural-timing layer behind "what's next"). The legal
analysis is researched with Midpage — the method is in step 6.
Method
- Scope the subject and pick the format. Case mode (pin the court, docket number, and
the forward-looking hook — a fully-briefed motion, a scheduled argument, an appeal under
submission) or topic mode (pin the development, jurisdiction, and why it's timely — an
effective date, a pending appeal that could resolve a split). Format: blog/client alert
unless the user asked for a social post (or both — they share the research). Asked to
"come up with" a post? Web-research 2–3 timely angles and confirm one before going deep.
No live hook on the chosen case? Say so and offer to pivot.
- Web-research the hook and primary sources. Prefer primary (
.gov, the court, the rule
text, the opinion) and established legal press over aggregators; capture canonical URLs.
Web research sets the scene — it never verifies law. Every holding still comes from
analyzeOpinion; every docket fact from analyzeDocketFiling.
- Pull the docket(s) and read the key filings.
analyzeDocketReport for posture,
parties, briefing history, judge; analyzeDocketFiling on the operative documents — you'll
quote and link them. Don't characterize a filing you didn't read.
- Pin posture and realistic timing. "Fully briefed as of [date]; argument [date] / none
set." Courts rule when they rule: never invent a decision date. Frame timing as commentary
("a ruling could come any time; motions like this in this district often take months") and
state only dates an authority actually set, linked.
- One skippable check-in. Give a two-line read of what you found, then ask whether the
user wants to steer focus (which issue/angle), structure (their template, a Q&A), or
analysis (a split, this judge's track record, sector impact). Defaults are fine — if they
shrug, proceed: center the issue most likely to drive the development, use the anatomy
below, balanced read of the authority. Don't block on a non-answer.
- Research the legal question with Midpage, scoped to the chosen focus (default: the one
or two questions the case or development turns on). All law comes from the tools this
session —
search finds candidates, findInOpinion previews, and analyzeOpinion is
what permits a citation. Frame each question as the operative element in dispute, pinned
to the forum; search with semantic concept-style queries (never boolean), one issue per
query, up to four in parallel, filtered to the jurisdiction; triage on highlights
(previews only — never quote them) and treatment; run searches framed from both
sides and analyzeOpinion the strongest case each side leans on. Check doesNotAddress
before citing a case for a point; build statements from supportedPropositions (verified
quote + deeplinkURL); never present a concurrence/dissent as the holding; surface
negative treatment. Capture how courts have come out and any split or trend. Balanced and
explanatory — informed commentary, not advocacy, not a prediction dressed as fact.
A social post gets the same verification — shorter output never means weaker grounding.
- Write it in the chosen format (anatomies below). Short paragraphs, plain English,
terms of art defined inline, one or two linked authorities per point — no string cites.
- Deliver. Publishable markdown by default — ready to paste into the CMS or the
platform: headline/body/links/disclaimer for a blog; the post text (with link placement
noted) for a social post. Offer a Word draft via
references/legal-docx.md only if
wanted.
The two formats
Blog post / client alert (500–900 words). A specific, forward-looking headline (name
the stakes, not just the case) · a one-paragraph hook · what's happening in lay
terms, each claim linked to its filing or primary source · what's at stake beyond these
parties · what the law says — the governing rule and key authority with short woven
quotes and links, both sides' best case · what's next — posture and honest timing · a
one-paragraph takeaway · disclaimer and byline placeholders.
Social post (LinkedIn or similar, ~100–300 words). The condensed cut of the same
research: a first line that earns the scroll-stop (the stake or the development, concrete,
no clickbait) · 2–4 tight paragraphs or a short list — what happened, why it matters, what
to watch · a link to the primary source (the opinion, the rule, the docket) and at most one
authority · the short disclaimer line. Professional firm voice — no hashtag spam (0–3
relevant ones at most), no emojis, no engagement bait, no breathless "BIG news." Where the
platform doesn't render inline links well, put the link(s) at the end.
Disclaimer and bylines (always)
Close every blog/alert with this, verbatim or lightly adapted:
This post is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It is based
solely on public court filings and published decisions and does not reflect any non-public
information. Reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship. This may constitute
attorney advertising.
A social post carries the condensed form, never omitted: Not legal advice. Based solely on
public filings and published decisions. May constitute attorney advertising.
Bylines are placeholders — By [Author], [Firm] — [Date] — never invented.
Hard rules
- Public, linkable sources only, read this session: the public docket, published
authority, reputable public web sources. Never privileged strategy, inside information, or
anything a party hasn't put on the public record — if you happen to know more, it does not
go in.
- Link everything: filings per
references/citations.md (ECF No. + Midpage URL), cases
with the exact citation analyzeOpinion returned, every factual claim to its primary source.
- Honest about timing and outcome: no manufactured decision dates, no result predicted as
if known.
- Not legal advice: the disclaimer (full or condensed per format) is never omitted, and
the post never addresses a specific reader's situation.