Academic Legal Writing
Style guide for law review articles, seminar papers, and legal scholarship based on Eugene Volokh's Academic Legal Writing.
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)
Enforcement
IRON LAW #1: 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 #2: 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.
Rationalization Table - STOP If You Think:
| Excuse | Reality | Do Instead | |--------|---------|------------| | "This article discusses..." | Bores reader instantly | START with concrete problem or controversy | | "Table-of-contents paragraph helps" | Readers skip it | INTEGRATE roadmap into intro | | "Background section comes first" | Not before establishing relevance | SHOW problem first, background second | | "Case-by-case summary is thorough" | Tedious and unhelpful | SYNTHESIZE: "Courts hold X except Y" | | "Counterargument would hurt my claim" | Ignoring it hurts worse | CONFRONT and refine claim | | "Treatise summary is good enough" | Treatises have errors | READ original cases | | "Arguably" makes my point | Acknowledges controversy without arguing | MAKE the argument explicitly | | "This metaphor is clear" | Metaphors hide incomplete logic | UNPACK: what's the actual argument? |
Red Flags - STOP Immediately If You Think:
- "Let me write standard intro" → NO. Find concrete problem first.
- "I'll address objections later" → NO. Confront counterarguments NOW.
- "This treatise explains the case" → NO. Read the original case.
- "Background section needs more" → NO. Only include what proves claim.
Delete & Restart Pattern
When to delete and restart:
- Intro starts with "This article discusses" → Delete, start with concrete problem
- Background exceeds proof section → Delete excessive background
- Claim made without addressing objections → Delete section, add counterargument confrontation
- Citation chain to primary source → Delete citation, read and cite original
- 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
Introduction
The introduction serves three functions:
- Persuade readers to keep reading
- Summarize the article for those who won't read it
- 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?
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 File
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 Reference
Load the full reference when:
- Encountering specific evidence evaluation questions
- Needing detailed survey methodology guidance
- Working on substantial manuscript revision
- Checking specific word choice or usage questions
Integration
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.