1. Preliminary statements that summarize the case so that decision makers understand the significance of the law and facts presented.

Like an executive summary, the preliminary statement summarizes the argument's essence--the issues, answers and reasons-- within a factual context. It orients readers to your most important ideas and directs them to the one idea that brings all other ideas and details into focus. It shows your conclusion and helps readers make sense of what follows, e.g., who, what, where, why, and how.

Indicators:
• Sufficient information is present to help the decision-maker decide the case quickly and fairly including:

- The big picture -- what's the fight all about? who wants what? what's the context within which the situation arose?

- Specific questions -- what issues must be decided in order to resolve the matter?

- The core of the argument -- why should you win? why do you have a leg to stand on?

• Interests of brevity and detail are balanced.

• Extraneous information is omitted such as unnecessary boilerplate, irrelevant details, clutter of dates and defined terms.

• Information is accurately stated.

• Strong, pull-no-punches arguments are made while avoiding hyperbole and refraining from attacking the other side personally.

 
2. Factual statements that demonstrate the inherent fairness and legal validity of the writer's position.

Statements of fact contain two types of facts --facts that create a context for what happened and facts drawn from the law on which you intend to rely. In crafting the factual statement, you should strive toward making your legal analysis seem like the only possible means of reaching a just result on the basis of the facts.

A compelling statement of facts tells a story. Writing a persuasive story involves thinking about how to frame the facts. Chronology, by itself, does not make a story. Facts may be organized into several patterns:

• when -- chronology;

• who -- people or institutions such as the parties, government agencies, witnesses, experts;

• what -- things such as medications, assistive technology;

• where -- location, other geographical context of an incident such as a board and care home;

• why -- explanation or motive for events such as discrimination, greed, bureaucratic inertia.

Factual statements present a golden opportunity to present the equities of your case. Although you can't characterize facts or draw inferences from the facts in the factual statement, you can allow inferences about the equities to emerge inevitably in readers' minds as their own response.


Indicators:
• Statement advances the case theory.

• Statement contains sufficient context facts and all legally significant facts. Immaterial facts are omitted.

 
"Just the Facts, Ma'am" from The Writer's Block by Nancy Lawler Dickhute. The Nebraska Lawyer.
January 2003.
The legal writer can learn a thing or two from Sgt. Joe Friday’s methodology when tackling the fact section of a brief. Professor Dickhute describes 8 principles that allow you to do just that.
 

3. Point headings that focus decision maker attention on a specific legal problem in the case.

Arguments are divided into points; each point an independent ground for relief. For example, arguing that an action could be dismissed because the statute of limitations has run and the summons was improperly served, gives rise to two points.

Each point becomes a heading; each heading further divided into sub-headings. Each sub-heading constitutes a significant step of logic in arguing for the ground of relief stated in the heading. Read together, the point headings and sub-headings outline your argument.

Point headings and sub-headings contain key facts and applicable legal rules, briefly encapsulating the first paragraph of the argument that follows. Point headings also include the ultimate result that you are requesting, e.g., benefits be granted, action be dismissed.

You should word points headings and sub-headings forcefully and argumentatively-- asserting the essential idea and showing how that idea fits into your case theory.

Indicators:
• Point headings focus on an independent ground of relief in the case.

• The argument's strongest points are included as headings. Insignificant points are not included as headings.

• Headings and sub-headings are sequenced persuasively to lead readers to the writer's conclusions.

• For each heading, the number of sub-headings equals the significant steps of logic in the argument.

• Too many sub-headings fragment the argument so that readers can't quickly see how the argument fits together.

• Too few sub-headings hide the argument's logic.

• Each heading makes explicit the relief that the writer is seeking.

• Headings and sub-headings contain facts and legal rules that show how the law applies to the case.

• Headings and sub-headings are presented with forceful assertion.

• Headings and sub-headings are stated with precision, clarity and economy according to General Writing Competency #3.

• Headings and sub-headings conform to the mechanics of the language according to
General Writing Competency #4.

4. Arguments that demonstrate the legal bases that compel a conclusion in the client's favor.

Your legal argument follows point headings and subheadings. Headings contain a synopsis of the first paragraph of the argument that follows.

Begin your argument by giving your conclusion (C); then a brief statement of the rule to support the conclusion, telling why you should win (R); then a detailed analysis of the facts (A); and finally your cases (C).
Discussion of cases should come at the end, unless a case is so central or new that you must discuss it first. Key or controlling cases must be discussed in detail, but the intricacies of other cases can be explained in a phrase, clause or parenthetical.

Quote someone if the quotation speaks directly to the point or if the author said something far more eloquently than you could. Quoting the court's own words back to it is most always a good idea.

Indicators:
• Argument is structured for clarity and
persuasive impact.

- The argument supports assertion in point
heading.

- Structure follows the CRAC method.

- Attack is focused on a few strong points
vs. blunderbuss approach.

- Strongest legal argument is emphasized
(precedent v. equity and policy).

- Any quotations are brief and appropriate.

• Legal Rules are defined and explained.

- Best and most applicable authority is
selected.

- Superfluous and irrelevant authority is
excluded.


- Elements of enacted law at issue are
explained using court opinions,
legislative purpose or history, statutory
language, interpretive canons, policy
considerations.

- Controlling court opinions are analyzed
and relied on to support major
propositions by stating key facts, holding
and rationale.

• Fact Analysis
- How legal rules operate on the facts is
demonstrated.

- Facts are connected to each essential
element of enacted law.

- Key facts of court opinions are
compared to key facts of case to
demonstrate similarity or dissimilarity.

- Extending, limiting or rejecting a
legal rule is explained by referring to
appropriate authority and the key facts of
the case.

5. Refutations of opponents' arguments that assure the decision maker that no meritorious points have been overlooked.

Your job is to address the other side's principal allegations and in ways that support arguments that you have already made. You don't have to respond to your opponent's every argument.

Be careful not to over argue your case. It's usually not helpful to take your opponent's arguments and talk about all the dire things that will happen if the decision maker rules against you.

Focusing on personalities suggests that you're weak on the merits. Rarely if ever mention the other side. If you must challenge them, do it in a straightforward way; e.g., "the cases cited by defendant do not apply." Behaving like a junkyard dog toward your opponent confuses strength with shrillness and sarcasm.

Indicators:

• Opponent's principal points are strategically addressed.

• Opponent's principal points are not ignored.

• Opponent's key arguments are effectively distinguished or explained away.

• Hyperbole and personality attacks are avoided.