Skip to main content
New: Introducing Irys Workbench, agents to take up the work for you. See Workbench
Book a DemoStart Free Trial

Playbook 3 of 3

Legal Writing and Citation

This is where students get caught. Courts across the country have repeatedly sanctioned lawyers for AI-fabricated citations in filings. If practicing lawyers are getting sanctioned for submitting AI-fabricated citations, a 1L will get caught faster. This playbook opens with one rule: never cite what you have not opened. Master that rule and everything else here is safe to use. Skip it and you will submit a fabricated citation.

On this page

This playbook covers the writing tasks that come with a legal research assignment: structuring a memo, drafting a statement of facts, stress-testing your own argument, tightening a paragraph, checking citations, checking Bluebook format, and converting a memo into a brief. Use it once you have a legal question and facts to write about, not as a way to generate the analysis itself.

The rule above the seven prompts matters more than any of them: never cite what you have not opened. AI can help you structure a memo, sharpen a paragraph, or stress-test an argument. It cannot verify its own citations, and a citation you did not personally verify is not a citation you can put your name on.

Two things to know before you start. Every worked example below is representative, meant to show the shape of a good answer, not a transcript pulled from one AI tool; what you get back will differ. And none of these prompts need a paid product. Paste them into any general-purpose AI assistant, free or paid, and fill in the brackets with your own facts and question. What you must never paste from any AI tool, without opening the source yourself, is a citation.

Prompt 1

Structure a Predictive Memo

You are structuring a predictive memo for [subject area, e.g., "contract law"].

The question I need to answer: [state your legal question]
The facts: [paste the facts you are analyzing]
The applicable law: [state the jurisdiction and general area, e.g., "California contract law"]

Structure my memo using this format:
- Issue: [one sentence stating the legal question]
- Brief answer: [one sentence predicting the answer]
- Facts: [summarize the facts in 3-4 sentences]
- Analysis: [outline the analysis structure you should follow]
- Conclusion: [restate the brief answer]

Show me the structure. Do not write the full analysis.

Copy and paste this prompt exactly:

This prompt gives you a skeleton, not a memo. You still write the actual analysis; the AI is organizing the shape it should take before you start drafting.

Worked example. This is a representative response; yours will differ. A student structures a memo on whether Alice and Bob formed a contract.

Representative output:

  • Issue: Did Alice and Bob form a binding contract?
  • Brief answer: Likely yes, if mutual intent and consideration exist, though the informal nature of the exchange creates some ambiguity.
  • Analysis outline: (1) Was there an offer, and was it communicated or revoked? (2) Was there acceptance, and does it mirror the offer? (3) Was there consideration? (4) Any defenses, such as fraud, mistake, or lack of capacity?
  • Conclusion: Under [jurisdiction] law, a contract likely formed, restating the brief answer with the key facts.

Verification: Confirm the structure covers every element your jurisdiction actually requires for the issue. A missing element in the outline becomes a missing element in the memo.

Prompt 2

Draft a Statement of Facts from a Record

You are a law student drafting a statement of facts for a memo.

The facts I have: [paste the raw facts from a hypothetical or fact pattern]

Draft a statement of facts that:
1. Is 3-4 paragraphs long
2. Includes only facts relevant to the legal issue
3. Is objective (no conclusions of law)
4. Establishes a narrative the reader can follow

Show me the statement of facts. Do not include analysis or conclusions.

Copy and paste this prompt exactly:

Paste every fact you have, even ones that seem irrelevant. Let the prompt decide what to include; the whole point of a statement of facts is choosing which facts belong, and you want that choice made deliberately, not by omission.

Worked example. This is a representative response; yours will differ. A student drafts facts for a commercial real estate dispute.

Representative output:

Alice owns a commercial building in San Francisco. In March 2024, she listed it for sale at $2 million. Bob, a real estate investor, viewed the building on March 15. On March 20, Bob called Alice and offered $1.9 million. Alice said "I will think about it." On March 22, Alice called Bob back and said "I accept your offer." Bob then said he had changed his mind. Alice sued for breach of contract.

Verification: Read the draft against your source record. Confirm every fact stated is actually in the record, and confirm no conclusion of law (like "a contract was formed") snuck into what should be a neutral narrative.

Prompt 3

Build a Counter-Argument to Your Own Position

You are critical-reading your own legal memo.

My position: [state the conclusion you have reached on a legal question]
My main argument: [state the strongest argument for your position]

What is the best counter-argument an opposing lawyer could make?
State the counter-argument, then identify which fact pattern or rule it relies on.

Show me the strongest version of the counter-argument, not a weak one.

Copy and paste this prompt exactly:

Ask specifically for the strongest version, as the prompt does. A weak counter-argument that's easy to knock down teaches you nothing about where your own analysis is actually exposed.

Worked example. This is a representative response; yours will differ. A student stress-tests a contract-formation argument.

Representative output:

Your position: A contract was formed between Alice and Bob.

Your argument: Bob's offer and Alice's acceptance satisfy the elements of offer and acceptance.

Counter-argument: Alice's statement "I will think about it" was a rejection of the offer, not silence that preserved it. Under common law, a rejection terminates the offer, so Alice could not later accept it. This relies on the rule that an offer dies once the offeree explicitly rejects it.

Verification: Check whether the rule the counter-argument relies on is actually the law in your jurisdiction. If it is, your memo needs to address it directly, not ignore it.

Prompt 4

Tighten a Paragraph Without Losing the Argument

You are editing a memo paragraph for tightness.

Here is my draft paragraph: [paste 4-5 sentences of your writing]

Tighten this to 2-3 sentences by:
1. Removing redundancy
2. Removing background that is not essential to the legal point
3. Combining related sentences
4. Cutting adjectives that do not add legal meaning

Keep the same legal content. Just make it denser.

Copy and paste this prompt exactly:

Use this on a paragraph you've already written, not as a substitute for drafting it. Tightening someone else's ideas is different from tightening your own; you have to already know what the paragraph is trying to say.

Worked example. This is a representative response; yours will differ.

Original: "In California, contract law is governed by the California Civil Code. The California Civil Code has many rules about contracts. One important rule is the rule about offer and acceptance. This rule states that in order to form a contract, there must be an offer from one party and an acceptance from another party. The offer must be communicated to the other party, and the acceptance must match the offer."

Edited: "Under California law, a contract forms when one party makes an offer and the other accepts it. Both the offer and acceptance must be communicated."

Verification: Read the edited version against the original. Confirm no legal content was cut along with the redundancy. Tightening should remove words, not substance.

Workflow

The Citation Verification Workflow (Not a Prompt)

You are checking the Bluebook format of case citations.

Here are the citations I used in my memo: [paste your citations as you wrote them]

For each citation, tell me:
1. Is it in correct Bluebook format?
2. If not, what should it be?

Format as: "Your citation / Correct format"

This is not a prompt. This is a mandatory workflow, and it is the single most important thing in this playbook.

For every case or statute you cite:

  1. Open Google Scholar or your legal database.
  2. Search for the case name. Confirm the case exists.
  3. Pull the opinion. Confirm the court and year match.
  4. Search for the quote you are citing (Ctrl-F in the opinion).
  5. If you cited a holding without a quote, find the page where the court stated that holding. Verify the words match your paraphrase.
  6. Read the context around the quote. Confirm it means what you think it means.
  7. Check whether the case is still good law, using Google Scholar or your database's citator.
  8. Confirm the case is binding in your jurisdiction, or note that it is persuasive.
  9. Write down the citation in the correct format.

Time: 3 to 5 minutes per cite. Do this for every cite before you submit. This workflow is what stops sanctions. If you do nothing else from this playbook, do this.

Prompt 6

Bluebook Format Checking

You are converting a predictive memo into an argumentative brief.

My memo conclusion: [state the conclusion]
My key arguments: [list the 2-3 strongest arguments from your memo]

Reframe these arguments as persuasive statements (as if arguing to a court, not predicting).
Keep the same legal content but change the framing from "the law likely allows X" to "the law requires X."

Show me how to reframe each argument.

Copy and paste this prompt exactly:

This prompt checks formatting only. It does not, and cannot, confirm the case is real or that you've correctly stated its holding; that's what the citation verification workflow above is for. Run both, in that order.

Worked example. This is a representative response; yours will differ. A student checks a citation to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

Representative output:

Your citation: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 1964

Correct format: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

Note: the year goes in parentheses, not after the page number.

Verification: Confirm the reporter volume and page number themselves are correct, not just the punctuation. A Bluebook check fixes format; it doesn't confirm the citation points to a real case.

Prompt 7

Convert a Memo into a Brief

Copy and paste this prompt exactly:

Only use this once you've verified every citation the memo relies on. Reframing a predictive argument as a persuasive one doesn't change whether the underlying citations are real.

Worked example. This is a representative response; yours will differ. A student converts a contract-formation memo into brief language.

Memo version: "The law likely allows Alice to recover for breach of contract because mutual intent to be bound is present and consideration exchanged."

Brief version: "The law compels the conclusion that Alice is entitled to enforce the contract. Mutual assent is clear from the parties' exchange, and consideration is evident in the exchange of promises."

Verification: Confirm the persuasive framing doesn't overstate what the law actually says. "Compels" and "requires" are stronger claims than "likely allows"; make sure the authority you're citing actually supports the stronger version.

The honest part

Where Students Get Caught

This is where students get caught. Courts across the country have repeatedly sanctioned lawyers for AI-fabricated citations in filings. If practicing lawyers are getting sanctioned for this, a 1L will get caught faster.

The rule that makes everything else in this playbook safe: never cite what you have not opened. Master it and you can use AI on legal writing without risk. Skip it and you will eventually submit a fabricated citation, because AI-generated citations look exactly like real ones until you check.

Before you submit

The Final Checklist

Before you submit a legal memo or brief, check every box:

  1. Every case I cited, I have opened and read the opinion.
  2. Every quote I used, I found in the opinion by searching for it.
  3. Every citation is in correct Bluebook format.
  4. Every holding I paraphrased matches what the court actually said.
  5. I can explain every cite and every argument if asked.
  6. I have read the context around every quote to confirm I did not misrepresent it.

If you cannot check all six boxes, do not submit.

Keep going

Where to Go Next

Back to Legal AI for Law Students for the concepts this playbook builds on: Citation Grounding vs. Generation, Context Persistence, and Honor Code Compliance.

Two more playbooks: Case Briefing and Reading and Outlining and Exam Prep.

Not sure how ready you are for this yet? The student readiness scorecard is twelve questions, two minutes.

Build habits now, get hired faster

The habits on this page are free to build. When you're ready for a tool that keeps them going after graduation, Irys has a student plan.

See the student plan