casemark/amicus-coalition

Amicus Coalition Management

Coordinates multi-organization amicus briefs from intake through filing. Prevents the most common coalition failures: unauthorized org listings, missed sign-off deadlines, incomplete disclosures, version proliferation, and unresolved policy disagreements.

Quick Start

1. Gather intake (Checkpoint A below)
2. Establish governance and backward timeline from filing deadline
3. Align positions via Issue-Framing Memo
4. Draft under single-pen authority with controlled circulation
5. Resolve conflicts; escalate if needed
6. Execute two-step sign-off protocol
7. Verify disclosures, format cover/caption, file

Defaults (when user says "use defaults" or "just draft"): forum-agnostic draft with [VERIFY FORUM] markers; single-pen authority with lead counsel; sign-off cutoff 48 hours before filing deadline.

Checkpoint A: Pre-Draft Intake

Gather before drafting. Do not proceed until collected or gaps flagged.

1. Docket — court, case number, caption, all deadlines
2. Parties' briefs — opening, response, reply (as available); key orders
3. Forum rules — word/page limits, disclosure requirements, consent/leave rules, cover formatting, e-filing specs [VERIFY per forum]
4. Coalition roster — full legal names, jurisdiction of incorporation, display names, entity types
5. Approval pathways — authorized signatory per org, internal review chain, lead time
6. Red lines — positions each org cannot support or endorse
7. Counsel-of-record — names, bar numbers, addresses; pro hac vice needs
8. Disclosure inputs — per FRAP 29(a)(4)(E) / Rule 37.6: who authored, who funded
9. Posture — supporting which party (or neither); consent status or need for leave motion

Core Workflow

1. Governance and Timeline

| Element | Action | |---|---| | Single-pen authority | Lead counsel controls narrative; coalition provides input, not co-drafting | | Authority map | Per org: who commits to join, who approves final text, who speaks publicly | | Backward timeline | Filing deadline → sign-off cutoff → final proof → near-final draft → outline | | Hard cutoff | No sign-off by cutoff = excluded. No "pending approval" listings |

Send Workflow Memo at kickoff requiring: (1) one consolidated comment set by deadline, (2) written authorization by cutoff. State that absent authorization, the org will not be listed.

2. Position Alignment

1. Gather each org's desired emphasis (economic, technical, historical, policy)
2. Cross-check against parties' briefs to eliminate duplication
3. Produce Issue-Framing Memo (1-2 pages): proposed argument headings, key factual propositions with citations, empirical/technical materials, posture
4. Solicit red lines in writing before full draft

3. Draft Management

| Rule | Rationale | |---|---| | One official draft, one sender | Prevents version proliferation | | Naming: AmicusCoalition_Brief_Draft[N]_YYYYMMDD | Version integrity | | One point person per org, one consolidated comment set | Avoids conflicting markups | | Triage: (a) legal/argument, (b) factual/citation, (c) policy/branding | Legal clarity governs over branding | | All markup confidential (Model Rule 1.6) | No forwarding outside coalition | | Late new sections require equal-length cut | Word-limit discipline |

4. Conflict Resolution

Conflict types:

• Core (org cannot be associated with the position) — narrow the position, modularize language, or allow withdrawal
• Expressive (emphasis/phrasing disagreement) — favor legal clarity and court credibility

Compromise patterns:

• Statutory avoidance: resolve on statutory grounds; address constitutional only if reached
• Narrow consensus: "Amici take no position on outer bounds of [test], but under any formulation, [party] prevails"
• Procedural framing: reframe around procedural deficiency vs. substantive policy

Escalation: Written issue log (contested text, positions, proposed resolution, deadline) → lead attorney → supported party's counsel if needed. Treat log as privileged work product.

Never draft language suggesting consensus where none exists (Model Rule 3.3).

5. Sign-Off Protocol

Two-step authorization:

1. Join authorization on near-final draft — written confirmation from authorized person that org joins the brief substantially as circulated, with counsel authorized for non-substantive edits
2. Final confirmation on filing version (if time permits)

| Rule | Detail | |---|---| | Written only | No verbal approvals | | Verify signatory authority | Policy staff enthusiasm ≠ institutional authorization | | Track entity names precisely | Distinguish association from its foundation | | Re-confirm after substantive changes | Post-sign-off changes require new authorization | | Default to exclusion | Missed cutoff = not listed |

6. Filing

Cover format [VERIFY per forum]:

BRIEF OF [LEAD AMICUS] AND [N] OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS AMICI CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF [PARTY]

Disclosures checklist:

• [ ] FRAP 29(a)(4)(E) / Rule 37.6 authorship and funding — every member
• [ ] FRAP 26.1 corporate disclosure — every corporate amicus
• [ ] Consent of parties stated, or motion for leave attached

Filing checklist:

• [ ] Consent/leave requirements verified [VERIFY]
• [ ] Service requirements confirmed (all parties, method, paper copies)
• [ ] Final cite-check — every citation verified
• [ ] All listed amici have timely written authorization
• [ ] Counsel info complete; bar admissions satisfy forum requirements
• [ ] PDF requirements met (bookmarks, fonts, OCR, color covers)
• [ ] Word/page count within limits
• [ ] Amicus list consistent across cover, interest statement, signature block, disclosures

Internal filing certification — record: authorizations received, orgs removed for missed cutoff, final word/page count, disclosure verification, filing method.

Checkpoint B: Post-Draft Review

After delivering initial draft, confirm:

1. All orgs confirmed sign-off authority and review timeline?
2. Remaining red-line conflicts needing escalation?
3. Cover/caption format matches forum requirements?
4. All disclosure inputs (authorship, funding) collected from every member?

Jurisdiction Notes

| Forum | Key Requirements | |---|---| | Federal circuits | FRAP 29; word limit varies by circuit; local rules on covers, e-filing, corporate disclosures; D.C. Circuit strict on non-duplication | | U.S. Supreme Court | Rule 37, Rule 33.1 (booklet format), green cover for merits; Rule 37.3 timing strictly enforced | | State appellate | Varies dramatically; many require motion for leave; different disclosure regimes [VERIFY] | | Admin tribunals | Unique rules/customs; require rule-based confirmation, not inference |

Always retrieve and cite current official rules for the specific forum. Flag all unverifiable procedural statements with [VERIFY].

Common Pitfalls

• Unauthorized listing — never list an org without timely written authorization from a verified signatory
• Disclosure gaps — collect authorship/funding info from every member, not just lead org
• Name mismatches — verify entity names character-by-character across all brief sections
• Fabricated consensus — do not attribute positions to orgs that have not approved them (Model Rule 3.3)
• Restating party briefs — brief must deliver unique contribution the parties' briefs do not
• Hallucinated rules — never fabricate forum rules or filing requirements; use [VERIFY] for unconfirmed details

Guidelines

• Ethics: Treat each amicus as client for conflicts (Model Rules 1.7-1.10) and confidentiality (1.6); check conflicts before accepting any org
• Citations: Every non-record factual claim needs a pinpoint citation; flag unverifiable with [VERIFY]
• Adversarial lens: Before filing, ask whether opponent could move to strike based on misstatements, undisclosed funding, or noncompliance
• Anti-hallucination: Use [VERIFY] for all unconfirmed procedural details
• Attorney review required: All outputs require attorney review before filing