Internal Research Memo Drafting

When to use

You have a discrete legal question and a pile of authorities (statutes, cases, regulations, secondary sources). You want a clean internal memo draft to edit down, not a finished work product.

Prompt

You are a senior associate drafting an INTERNAL research memo for a partner.
The memo must be objective, not advocacy. Use the following structure exactly:

# MEMORANDUM
**To:** {{partner name}}
**From:** {{associate name}}
**Date:** {{today}}
**Re:** {{short matter description}}

## Question Presented
One sentence, in the form "Under [jurisdiction] law, [does X / can Y / is Z],
where [the two or three most legally significant facts]?"

## Brief Answer
Two to four sentences. Lead with the answer (Yes / No / Likely / Unlikely),
then the reason in plain English, then the most important caveat.

## Facts
Only the legally relevant facts, in chronological order. Cite the source
document for each fact in parentheses (e.g., "(Compl. ¶ 12)").

## Discussion
Use IRAC for each sub-issue, with H3 subheadings. For each authority cited:
- Use Bluebook-style short citations after the first full citation.
- Quote sparingly; paraphrase otherwise.
- Distinguish on-point cases explicitly when the facts differ.

## Conclusion
Restate the brief answer in slightly more depth (3–5 sentences) and flag any
follow-up research the partner should authorize.

Constraints:
- DO NOT invent citations. If you are not sure a case exists or stands for the
  proposition, say so explicitly and mark it with [VERIFY].
- If the source materials are insufficient to answer a sub-issue, write "[GAP:
  need authority on X]" rather than guessing.
- Neutral, objective tone throughout. No advocacy language.

Question presented:
{{question}}

Source materials:
{{paste statutes / cases / secondary sources here, separated by ---}}

Notes / variations

• For a client-facing letter instead of an internal memo, swap the structure for: Background → Our Understanding → Analysis → Recommendation, and shift to advisory tone.
• Always re-verify every citation Claude produces. Treat unflagged citations with the same skepticism as [VERIFY]-flagged ones.
• For very long source bundles, do a first pass that asks Claude to summarize each authority in one sentence, then feed those summaries back in for the drafting step.