edwinhu/writing-legal

Academic Legal Writing

Style guide for law review articles, seminar papers, and legal scholarship based on Eugene Volokh's Academic Legal Writing.

On Skill Load

Step 1: Load base writing rules

Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/writing/SKILL.md and follow its instructions.

Step 2: Check for active workflow

If .planning/ACTIVE_WORKFLOW.md exists and workflow: writing, update style: legal.

If no .planning/PRECIS.md exists in the project:

• Suggest: "No PRECIS.md found. Consider /writing to set up thesis, audience, and claims first."

Step 3: Apply legal-specific rules below

When to Use

Invoke this skill for:

• Law review articles and student notes
• Seminar papers and legal scholarship
• Academic legal writing with footnotes
• Editing legal prose for structure and argument

For general writing: Use /writing skill (Strunk & White) For economics/finance: Use /writing-econ skill (McCloskey)

Required Skills

When generating Word documents (.docx), you MUST load the /docx skill first. The docx skill provides proper document manipulation capabilities.

Template Requirement

Template location: templates/law_review_template.docx

When creating or converting a docx, load references/formatting.md for heading styles, body text styles, pandoc --reference-doc usage, and the document creation gate function.

Enforcement

IRON LAW #1: NO DOCX WITHOUT TEMPLATE FIRST

Before creating ANY Word document for legal writing:

1. Load the /docx skill
2. Copy templates/law_review_template.docx as the base
3. THEN add content to the template copy

If you created a blank docx without the template, DELETE IT and START OVER with the template.

IRON LAW #2: NO CLAIM WITHOUT CONFRONTING COUNTERARGUMENTS

If your draft makes a prescriptive claim but doesn't address obvious objections, DELETE the section and START OVER. Legal scholarship requires anticipating and answering counterarguments, not ignoring them.

IRON LAW #3: NO SECONDARY SOURCE CITATIONS FOR PRIMARY SOURCES

If you cite a case/statute/historical fact via an intermediate source (law review, treatise), DELETE the citation and READ THE ORIGINAL. Even Supreme Court opinions misstate precedents.

Citation Facts

• Reviewers and editors check citations against the originals. A case cited from a headnote, a treatise, or training data — without reading the holding — is an unverified claim presented as fact, and one wrong citation destroys the author's credibility with every reader who catches it.

Red Flags — STOP If About To:

• Open with "This article discusses..." → STOP. Hook with the concrete problem or controversy.
• Defer counterarguments to a later section → STOP. Confront objections in the section that makes the claim (Iron Law #2).
• Cite a case via a treatise or another case → STOP. Read and cite the original (Iron Law #3).
• Expand background beyond what the claim requires → STOP. Show the problem first; include only what proves the claim.

Delete & Restart Pattern

When to delete and restart:

1. Intro starts with "This article discusses" → Delete, start with concrete problem
2. Background exceeds proof section → Delete excessive background
3. Claim made without addressing objections → Delete section, add counterargument confrontation
4. Citation chain to primary source → Delete citation, read and cite original
5. Unpacked metaphor used as argument → Delete, write actual logical argument

How to restart:

Old: "This article discusses privacy concerns in Fourth Amendment doctrine..."
New: "When police drones photograph backyards, does the Fourth Amendment require a warrant?
      Courts disagree, but three features of aerial surveillance suggest yes."

Start with CONCRETE QUESTION that matters, not abstract topic description.

Law Review Article Structure

<EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT> ### The Three-Part Body is the DEFAULT — start at three, ALWAYS

A law-review article DEFAULTS to Introduction + three body Parts + Conclusion. Seed exactly these three body Parts before any decomposition:

| Part | Mode | Holds | |------|------|-------| | Part I — Background | descriptive | the law / doctrine / facts the argument needs | | Part II — The Argument (Proof of the Claim) | analytical | the proof, with counterarguments FOLDED IN — not a separate Part | | Part III — The Prescription | normative | the reform / fix |

Splitting a Part into two+ numbered Parts is an EXCEPTION, not the starting point. Split ONLY when a Part has become genuinely too large to hold together as one — and that is a demonstrated condition you reach, never the initial decomposition. Begin three-part; expand only on demonstrated unwieldiness, and log the split as an R4 decision in LEARNINGS.md.

Anti-pattern (do NOT do this): opening by decomposing the body into 4–5 Parts — e.g. splitting the Proof into separate "Elimination" and "Window" Parts, or breaking counterarguments out as their own Part — before any Part has proven unwieldy. Counterarguments belong folded into Part II. Five small Parts where three would hold is a structure smell, not thoroughness.

The subsections below describe what each section/Part DOES; the three-part body above is how many there are by default. </EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>

Introduction

The introduction serves three functions:

1. Persuade readers to keep reading
2. Summarize the article for those who won't read it
3. Frame how readers interpret what follows

Requirements:

• Show the problem concretely with specific examples or hypotheticals
• State the claim clearly—what does the article contribute?
• Integrate the roadmap into the introduction, not as a separate paragraph
• Hook the reader: concrete question, engaging story, controversy, or argument to rebut

Anti-patterns:

• Starting with "This article discusses..."
• Separate table-of-contents paragraph (readers skip it)
• Historical background before establishing relevance
• Vague generalities about the importance of the topic

Background Section

Synthesize precedents; do not summarize each case sequentially. Focus only on facts and rules necessary for the argument.

| Problem | Solution | |---------|----------| | Summarizing each case | Synthesize: "Courts generally hold X, except when Y" | | Mini-treatise on the area | Only what's needed for the claim | | 80% background, 20% claim | Balance must favor the original contribution |

Proof of the Claim

For prescriptive claims: Show the proposal is both doctrinally sound AND good policy.

Use a test suite: Apply the proposal to concrete scenarios (easy cases, hard cases, edge cases) to demonstrate it works.

Confront counterarguments:

• Turn problems to advantage: refine the claim, acknowledge uncertainty
• Stay on offense—address objections without becoming defensive
• Acknowledge costs honestly; readers respect candor

Connect to broader issues:

• How does the claim relate to parallel debates?
• What subsidiary discoveries emerged?
• What questions remain for future research?

Prescription (Part III)

The normative payoff: the reform/fix the argument earns. Keep it ONE Part by default.

• State the fix concretely and minimally — the smallest change that solves the problem proven in Part II.
• Show it is feasible and administrable (who implements it, by what mechanism), and tie it back to the doctrine from Part I.
• Anticipate implementation objections here; deeper merits-counterarguments stay folded into Part II's argument.

Conclusion

Keep conclusions brief. The real work is rewriting the introduction after the draft is complete, ensuring it accurately reflects the article's contributions.

Legal Argument Problems

Common logical problems in legal writing (see references/volokh-distilled.md for detailed examples):

| Problem | Issue | |---------|-------| | Categorical assertions | "Always" and "never" invite counterexamples | | Unpacked metaphors | "Slippery slope" and "chilling effect" hide incomplete arguments | | Missing logical pieces | Syllogisms that skip steps (subject to scrutiny ≠ fails scrutiny) | | Universal criticisms | "Chilling effect" applies to most laws—explain why this one matters | | Undefined abstractions | "Privacy," "paternalism," "democratic legitimacy" need definitions | | "Arguably" as argument | Acknowledges controversy but doesn't make the case |

Evidence and Citation

Read Original Sources

Never rely on intermediate sources for cases, statutes, or historical facts. Even Supreme Court opinions misstate precedents.

| Source Type | Rule | |-------------|------| | Cases/statutes | Read the original; don't trust treatises or other cases | | Historical facts | Go to history books, not law review articles citing them | | Scientific studies | Read the study, not the article summarizing it | | Newspapers | Unreliable; track down underlying documents | | Wikipedia | Use to find sources, but cite originals |

Be Precise with Terms

Avoid false synonyms: "murder" ≠ "homicide" ≠ "killing"; "foreign-born" ≠ "noncitizen"; "children" is ambiguous (0-14? 0-17? 0-24?).

Include necessary qualifiers: "falsely shouting fire" is quite different from "shouting fire."

Be Explicit About Assumptions

Make clear when inferring:

• From correlation to causation
• From one time/place to another
• From one variable to another (arrest rate ≠ crime rate)

Acknowledge the inference and defend it; don't hide it.

Handle Surveys Carefully

Surveys measure only what respondents said in response to specific questions. Valid surveys require:

• Random sampling (not self-selected, not convenience samples)
• High response rates (70%+)
• Sufficient sample size (1000+ for ±3% margin)
• Unambiguous questions

"Online survey" and "Internet poll" are almost sure signs of invalidity.

Rhetoric and Tone

| Principle | Application | |-----------|-------------| | Understate criticism | "Mistaken" not "idiotic"—overstating raises the burden of proof | | Attack arguments, not people | "This argument fails" not "Volokh is wrong" | | Avoid caricature | Quote adherents, not critics, when explaining a position |

See references/volokh-distilled.md for extended discussion of rhetorical problems.

Quick Reference

| Problem | Solution | |---------|----------| | "This article discusses X" | Hook with concrete problem | | Case-by-case summaries | Synthesize precedents | | Undefended metaphors | Unpack the concrete mechanism | | "Arguably" / "raises concerns" | Give the actual argument | | Relying on intermediate source | Read original case/study | | "Many children" | Specify: "111 children age 0-17" | | "Correlation shows causation" | Explain why inference is valid | | "Volokh's argument is idiotic" | "This argument seems unsound" |

Progressive Disclosure

For comprehensive guidance, consult:

Reference Files

• references/formatting.md - Template formatting reference:

  • Heading hierarchy and Title Case rules
  • Body text styles
  • Document creation gate function (5-step)
  • Pandoc --reference-doc usage
  • Template facts and red flags

• references/volokh-distilled.md - Extended Volokh guidance covering:

  • Full logical problems taxonomy
  • Word and phrase problems to avoid
  • Extended evidence handling
  • Survey analysis methodology
  • Editing principles and exercises

When to Load References

Load references/formatting.md when:

• Creating or converting a Word document
• Applying template styles or pandoc conversion

Load references/volokh-distilled.md when:

• Encountering specific evidence evaluation questions
• Needing detailed survey methodology guidance
• Working on substantial manuscript revision
• Checking specific word choice or usage questions

Integration

Required skills for document generation:

• /docx - Load BEFORE creating any Word document
• /bluebook - Load when formatting legal citations

After completing any legal writing task, invoke /ai-anti-patterns to check for AI writing indicators. The /writing skill covers general prose principles (active voice, omit needless words) that complement this skill.