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)

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: ${CLAUDE_SKILL_ROOT}/templates/law_review_template.docx

This template contains proper law review formatting: margins, fonts, footnote styles, and section formatting compliant with standard journal requirements.

Enforcement

IRON LAW #1: NO DOCX WITHOUT TEMPLATE FIRST

Before creating ANY Word document for legal writing:

1. Load the /docx skill
2. Copy ${CLAUDE_SKILL_ROOT}/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.

Rationalization Table - Template Usage

Excuse	Reality	Do Instead
"I'll format it properly later"	Formatting is structural, not cosmetic	START with template
"The content matters more"	Wrong format = rejection by journals	Template provides correct format
"I can apply styles after"	Retroactive styling breaks footnotes	Use template from the start
"A blank doc is simpler"	Blank doc means redoing all formatting	Copy template, it's one step
"User didn't ask for template"	Professional output is implicit	Always use template for docx

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:

Template Red Flags:

• "Let me create a new Word document" → NO. Copy the template first.
• "I'll add the template formatting later" → NO. Start with template.
• "The docx skill will handle formatting" → NO. docx skill needs template base.

Content Red Flags:

• "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:

1. Created docx without template → Delete file, copy template, start over
2. Intro starts with "This article discusses" → Delete, start with concrete problem
3. Background exceeds proof section → Delete excessive background
4. Claim made without addressing objections → Delete section, add counterargument confrontation
5. Citation chain to primary source → Delete citation, read and cite original
6. 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.

Gate Function: Document Creation

When user requests a Word document (docx), follow this 5-step gate:

STEP 1: LOAD    → Load /docx skill
STEP 2: COPY    → Copy ${CLAUDE_SKILL_ROOT}/templates/law_review_template.docx
                  to target location (e.g., user's specified path)
STEP 3: EDIT    → Add content to the COPIED template
STEP 4: VERIFY  → Check template formatting preserved (styles, footnotes)
STEP 5: DELIVER → Return the document to user

GATE VIOLATION = RESTART: If any step is skipped, delete the output and restart from Step 1.

Law Review Article Structure

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?

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:

Template

• templates/law_review_template.docx - Law review document template:
  • Proper margins and page setup for journal submission
  • Footnote styles compliant with Bluebook formatting
  • Section heading styles
  • Font and spacing requirements

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

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.