Writing a Legal Memo That Doesn't Get Sent Back
A legal memo is just a structured way of telling a senior attorney or client what the law says about a specific fact pattern, and what the likely outcome would be. That's it. The format exists so someone who hasn't read the case file can get the answer in five minutes. I've seen memos get thrown in the trash because they buried the lead under four pages of background history. Don't do that. Here's what a real one looks like when it's done right. The standard structure has six parts, and I'll walk through each one with a concrete scenario so you can see where people mess up. Question Presented — This goes first, even though it might seem backward. You're writing the memo for someone who needs to know immediately what you're answering. Frame it narrowly. "Does the statute of frauds apply to this oral agreement?" is better than "What are the enforceability issues with the contract?" I had a junior associate once write a question presented that was basically the entire factual background in paragraph form. The partner just underlined it and wrote "rewrite" at the top. Cut it down. One sentence if you can manage it.
Brief Answer — This should be two or three sentences maximum. State your conclusion upfront, then give the one or two supporting reasons. If the answer is "it depends," say so right away and spell out the conditions. I once spent twenty minutes reading through a memo that danced around the actual answer for three pages before finally saying "the claim is probably time-barred." The brief answer section should never require the reader to do any work. Statement of Facts — This is where most people drag it out. You need every fact that matters to the legal analysis and nothing else. Include dates, dollar amounts, and specific contractual language. Leave out the character notes about how sympathetic the client is unless sympathy is actually relevant to a legal standard. I worked on a breach of contract matter where the opposing side's memo included a two-paragraph description of the client's business history that had zero bearing on whether the goods conformed to specifications. We struck it and moved on. The rule of thumb: if you remove a sentence from the facts and the legal analysis doesn't change, cut it. Discussion — This is the meat of the memo. CRAC or IRAC format works here. Conclusion, Rule, Application, Conclusion — or Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Both are fine. Pick one and stick with it. The application section is where your actual analysis lives. Don't just recite cases. Explain how the facts of your situation map onto the holdings you're citing. I once handled a commercial lease dispute where the key issue was whether a clause about "routine maintenance" covered a full HVAC replacement. The controlling precedent said replacements weren't routine, but there was a split in jurisdiction. I laid out both sides, then explained why the weight of authority favored our position based on the specific wording of the lease. That's what the discussion section should be — a reasoned argument, not a case summary.
Conclusion — Restate the bottom line in slightly more detail than the brief answer. If you identified risks or counterarguments in the discussion, flag them here too. A memo that only presents one side of a disputed issue is misleading, and your supervisor will notice. I learned that the hard way early on when I wrote a memo about a liability exposure without mentioning a significant affirmative defense we'd overlooked. The adverse counsel's motion cited the exact case I'd skipped, and it made the whole memo look sloppy. References — Cite everything you relied on. Bluebook format if your jurisdiction requires it. Pinpoint citations matter more than people think — if you're quoting a case for a specific proposition, give the page number. Don't make someone flip through ten pages to find what you're referencing.
Get the Full Details
Common Mistakes That Make Memos Look Amateur
Writing the discussion before the question presented. These sections are interdependent. You can't know exactly what question to frame until you've done the research, and you can't research efficiently until you know the question. Write the question first as a placeholder, then draft the discussion, then go back and refine the question to match what you actually found. Citing secondary sources as if they're binding authority. Law review articles, treatises, and restatements are persuasive at best. If you're relying on them, acknowledge that in the discussion. Don't present them the same way you'd present a controlling statute. Ignoring unfavorable precedent. This is the most common mistake I see. If there's a case directly on point that hurts your position, cite it and explain why it shouldn't control. Distinguish it on its facts, or argue that the reasoning doesn't extend to your situation. Leaving it out looks either ignorant or dishonest, and both impressions damage your credibility.
When a Legal Memo Example Fails
Not everything deserves a full memo. If you're just researching a straightforward procedural question with a clear rule and no contested facts, a two-page email to your supervisor is probably sufficient. Memos are for situations where the law is unclear, the facts are messy, or the stakes are high enough that you need a permanent record of your analysis. Writing a twelve-page memo for a simple jurisdictional check is a waste of everyone's time. Conversely, trying to summarize a complex multi-issue dispute in a single page of email is irresponsible. Know the difference. There's also a point where a memo becomes a distraction from actually solving the problem. I had a situation where we spent three days drafting a memo analyzing whether a particular contract clause was enforceable under three different state laws, only to discover that the real issue was a settlement offer that made the whole question moot. The memo was technically sound but practically useless. Document your assumptions. Note when you're working with incomplete information. A memo that says "I can't fully answer this because the key document isn't available" is more honest and useful than one that guesses and presents speculation as analysis.
