A legal memo is meant to be interrogated. Whoever reads it — a supervising lawyer, a client, a court — is going to ask why the conclusion follows from the law, and a memo that can't answer that question under a couple of rounds of pushback hasn't actually done its job, however well it reads on a first pass.
State the question before the answer
Open with the precise legal question the memo answers, stated narrowly enough that a reader knows exactly what's in scope and what isn't. A memo that starts with background and works toward a question buried on page two makes the reader do work that's your job to do for them.
Lead with the conclusion, not the suspense
State your conclusion immediately after the question, in one or two sentences, before any analysis. Legal memos are not mystery novels — nobody benefits from the answer being withheld until the end. Everything after the conclusion is there to show why it's correct, not to build toward revealing it.
Show the reasoning chain, not just the destination
For each step in your analysis, state the rule, the source for that rule, and how it applies to the specific facts at hand — in that order, every time. A memo that jumps from 'the rule is X' to 'therefore the answer is Y' without showing how X applies to these particular facts hasn't actually connected the two; it's asserted a conclusion and hoped the reader doesn't notice the gap.
- State the precise question.
- State the conclusion, briefly, up front.
- For each step: state the rule, cite the source, apply it to the specific facts.
- Address the strongest counterargument directly, not by omission.
- Restate the conclusion at the end, now that the reasoning has earned it.
Address the counterargument you'd least like to answer
Every non-trivial legal question has a plausible counterargument, and a memo that ignores it hasn't tested its own conclusion — it's just stated one confidently. Include the strongest version of the opposing position, explicitly, and explain why your analysis still holds despite it. If you can't explain why it still holds, that's information about your conclusion, not a reason to leave the counterargument out.
A memo that doesn't mention the best argument against it hasn't avoided that argument. It's just made sure nobody sees you address it first.
References
- [1]Editorial principles — Legal Chronicle — accuracy and verification standards.
Rohan writes about how legal practice is changing under pressure from new tools, and how students can use those tools without cutting corners on rigor.