Legal Writing Quality Ciaransaunders

---
name: legal-writing-quality-ciaransaunders
title: Legal Writing Quality
description: Review, draft, improve, or critique legal writing — including correspondence, case analysis reports, legal memos, skeleton arguments, and other professional legal documents — applying the standards of qualified legal practice in England and Wales.
author: ciaransaunders
author_url: https://github.com/ciaransaunders/Skills-Public/tree/main/legal-writing-quality
license: MIT
version: 0.1.0
execution_mode: open
jurisdiction: gb
practice: general
language: en
---

# Legal Writing Quality

Review, draft, improve, or critique legal writing — including correspondence, case analysis reports, legal memos, skeleton arguments, and other professional legal documents — applying the standards of qualified legal practice in England and Wales.

Calibrated for SQE-level legal writing and appellate advocacy, drawing on the core competencies from *Written Skills for Lawyers* (5th ed.).

---

## Core Principles — Apply to Everything

Before doing anything else, hold these five principles in mind. Every output you produce should be tested against them.

**1. Legal precision over vague accuracy**
The law must be applied correctly to the specific facts. General statements of principle are not enough — identify the rule, apply it to these facts, and reach a clear conclusion. Never leave the reader to do the application themselves.

**2. Clarity and conciseness**
Prefer plain English. Avoid archaic legalese ("hereinbefore", "witnesseth", "the same") unless quoting statute or precedent directly. If a sentence runs longer than three lines, consider whether tabulation would serve better. Eliminate tautology: "grave and fatal error" means "fatal error"; "careful and detailed consideration" means "consideration."

**3. Logical structure**
Use the IRAC model as your default analytical framework:
- **Issue** — what legal question is being resolved?
- **Rule** — what is the applicable legal principle or test?
- **Application** — how does the rule apply to these specific facts?
- **Conclusion** — what is the clear outcome or recommendation?

For longer documents, ensure headings and sub-headings track this logic. The reader should never have to search for where the analysis is.

**4. Client-focused perspective**
Legal writing is not an academic exercise. Every analysis should address: what does this mean for the client? What are their options? What are the practical consequences of each? Provide a clear recommendation — avoid conclusions like "it depends" without explaining what it depends on and advising accordingly.

**5. Ethical integrity**
Flag anything that could mislead the reader, create a conflict of interest, or compromise the duty of independence. Good legal writing never overstates a client's position or suppresses an inconvenient authority.

---

## The Four Writing Tasks — When and How

### 1. Reviewing and Improving Existing Legal Writing

When the user shares a piece of legal writing for review:

1. Read it against the five core principles above.
2. Identify which of the Common Pitfalls (see below) are present.
3. Produce a structured critique: what works, what fails, and why.
4. Offer a redraft of problematic sections, not just a list of complaints.
5. If the document is short enough, redraft the whole thing.

Always explain your changes so the user understands the reasoning.

### 2. Drafting Legal Correspondence

Follow the four-stage drafting process for any letter or email:

**Stage 1 — Preparation**: What is the purpose? Who is the recipient? What legal principle governs? What result are you trying to achieve?

**Stage 2 — Planning**: Identify the legal issues, the facts, the advice or action required. Sketch the structure before writing a word.

**Stage 3 — Drafting**: Write in paragraphs, not bullets unless the content genuinely requires a list. Use active voice. Adapt tone and technicality to the audience.

**Stage 4 — Checking**: Verify: party names spelled correctly; dates and figures accurate; no dangling pronouns; no ambiguous cross-references; no misleading statements; correct salutation and formalities.

**Audience calibration:**
- **Lay client**: No Latin, no unexplained terms, no assumed legal knowledge. Explain the consequence of every action before describing the action.
- **Opposing counsel**: Precise, professional, no padding. Know the procedural rules (Part 36, pre-action protocols) and apply them correctly.
- **Internal (partner/colleague)**: IRAC structure, concise, flag risks clearly.

### 3. Case and Matter Analysis (Legal Memos and Reports)

Use IRAC throughout. For complex matters with multiple issues, use a separate IRAC for each issue and then synthesise in a conclusion.

The conclusion must:
- State a clear recommendation, not merely summarise the arguments
- Address the client's commercial or personal objective, not just the legal question in the abstract
- Flag risks and alternative outcomes with realistic probabilities where possible
- Indicate next steps

**Avoid the Academic Trap**: reciting law without applying it to facts, or applying it without a recommendation. A memo that ends "the law is unclear" is incomplete; add "but on balance, the stronger argument is X because…" and advise accordingly.

### 4. Drafting Legal Documents (Contracts, Pleadings, Skeleton Arguments)

Apply the four-stage process above. Additionally:

**Defined terms**: Use capitalised defined terms ("the Property", "the Claim", "the Respondent") to create a private dictionary. Once defined, use the defined term consistently — never slip back to a synonym or pronoun.

**Avoiding the Undistributed Middle**: When drafting time-based or threshold-based provisions, always check: what happens exactly at the boundary? "Before the date" and "after the date" leave the date itself unaddressed. Draft: "on or before" / "after" or "before" / "on or after."

**Ambiguous pronouns**: Where two parties of the same gender appear, never use "he", "she", or "they" without making the referent unmistakable. Repeat the party's name or defined term instead.

**Tabulation rule**: Any qualifying phrase (exceptions, conditions, provisos) attached to a list of three or more items should be tabulated so it is unambiguous which items it modifies.

**Active voice**: Default to active voice. "The Claimant served the notice" is clearer than "the notice was served." Reserve passive voice for where the actor is genuinely unknown or irrelevant.

---

## Common Pitfalls — Diagnosis and Fix

When reviewing writing, check for each of these:

| Pitfall | Diagnostic test | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Academic Trap | Does the analysis end with a recommendation? | Add a clear conclusion paragraph applying the law to the facts |
| Undistributed Middle | Are there boundary conditions not addressed? | Test the rule at the exact threshold value |
| Ambiguous pronoun | Can you tell which party "he/she/they" refers to? | Repeat the defined term |
| Tautology/padding | Can a word be removed without loss of meaning? | Remove it |
| Uncritical precedent use | Has the template been checked against current law? | Verify every clause is still legally effective |
| Misplaced punctuation | Does punctuation alter legal meaning? | Read aloud; check apostrophes and commas with care |
| Passive obscuring the actor | Does the reader know who must do what? | Rewrite in active voice naming the obligor |
| No client focus | Does the advice address the client's objective? | Add a "what this means for you" section |

---

## Output Format

Adapt format to task:

**Review request**: (1) Overall assessment → (2) Issue-by-issue critique against core principles → (3) Redrafted version or targeted redrafts

**Drafting request**: Produce the document, then add a brief note on any drafting choices the user should be aware of (e.g., risk of ambiguity in a particular clause, reliance on precedent that should be verified)

**Analysis/memo request**: Use clear headings: Issue / Law / Application / Conclusion. End with a numbered list of recommended next steps.

**Correspondence**: Draft the letter/email in full. Flag any missing information needed before it can be sent (e.g., dates, references).

---

## Quick Reference — Formatting Rules

- Active voice as default
- Short sentences preferred (max ~25 words) for key points
- Use defined capitalised terms after first full definition
- Tabulate any list of three or more items that carries a qualifying clause
- Use gender-neutral language: repeat the noun, or use "they/them" for a singular individual where the gender is unknown
- No archaic terms unless in a direct statutory quotation
- No padding: every word must earn its place