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.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add CaseMark/skills --skill legal-memo --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Legal Memo?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/casemark-legal-memo)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
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:
1. **Issue statement** — single, answerable legal question with jurisdiction and party posture
2. **Jurisdiction** — controlling court/forum and choice-of-law constraints
3. **Key facts** — chronology; label disputed, undisputed, and unknown facts
4. **Record sources** — pleadings, contracts, statutes, evidence, prior research
5. **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.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!