Legal Memorandum

Output Structure

1. Header

Standard memo header: DATE, TO, FROM, RE. The RE line must identify the specific legal issue (e.g., "Likelihood of Success on Summary Judgment — Causation in Doe v. Metro Transit"). Include matter/case reference number if available.

2. Questions Presented

Draft 1–3 questions using Under-Does-When format:

• Under — relevant law, statute, or rule
• Does/Is/Can — legal conclusion sought
• When — key facts driving the analysis

Frame for yes/no or short definitive answers. Prioritize by importance to client objectives. No conclusory or leading language.

3. Brief Answer

For each question:

• Open with Yes, No, or Probably [yes/no]
• 2–3 sentences of critical reasoning
• Reference controlling rule and dispositive facts

4. Statement of Facts

• Organization: chronological (transactions/procedural) or topical (multiple theories)
• Scope: legally relevant facts + necessary background only
• Tone: objective — no editorial commentary
• Sourcing: cite specific documents, depositions, exhibits parenthetically
• Disputed facts: flag explicitly when contested or unclear

Include a disclaimer that analysis is based on facts as presented and may change if additional facts emerge.

5. Analysis (CREAC)

Apply CREAC for each issue:

1. Conclusion — state conclusion for this issue upfront
2. Rule — articulate the legal rule; cite primary authority; quote key language where precision matters
3. Explanation — show how courts have applied the rule using factually analogous cases; explain reasoning, not just holdings
4. Application — apply rule to client's facts; draw direct parallels to precedent; address counterarguments; acknowledge weaknesses
5. Conclusion — restate conclusion for the issue

For multi-part tests, break into sub-analyses with subheadings. Cross-reference related issues.

6. Conclusion

• Directly answer each question presented
• Summarize key reasoning (no new arguments)
• Strategic recommendations: actions, risks, alternatives
• Next steps: deadlines, further research, litigation/negotiation strategy, information gaps

Checks

• Use controlling jurisdiction's law; cite primary authority over secondary sources
• Distinguish unfavorable cases rather than ignoring them
• Address the strongest opposing position for each issue
• Mark any unverified citation with [VERIFY]
• Calibrate depth: doctrinal nuance for attorneys, practical consequences for clients
• Present both sides honestly — do not hide unfavorable facts or authority
• Recommendations are practical and actionable, not purely academic
• Note where additional research may be warranted