TLDR Intros (quick intros that dish the key points in a document) are now common with judges and lawyers alike.
How do the greats craft them?
1. Give readers context - why is this dispute here? 2. Insert choice details to prime 3. Highlight your legal pitch
In a paragraph, Justice Kagan orients you to the situation and highlights several charged facts:
(1) that the defendant faces a hefty 15-year sentence,
(2) that the lower court is piling on 20 years after the fact, and
(3) this was a single facility on a single evening.
She also includes her key legal pitch: It's absurd to base a statutory trigger on distinct moments in time rather than a common-sense understanding of a single event.
Great legal writers spoon-feed ideas to readers - using sentences that tend toward the simple. Many of the best sentences are so simple all they need is a period.
When great writers get more complex and pack more groups of words (and ideas) into a sentence, they have a reason.
The first sentence is a simple clause.
The second sentence offers two simple, related ideas.
The third sentence is again only two groups of words and a simple structure (a phrase with some context to set the scene for the officer's visit)...
The fourth sentence is another simple single-clause sentence. And then when we finally get a few groups of words in the fifth sentence, it's crafted complexity. A narrative sentence meant to convey unfolding events and a scene.
Finally, the greats often do two things with transitions.
First, transition by adding helpful guides to your sentences - don't just insert empty transitions like "furthermore" that tell readers "another point is coming."
Second, vary your transition phrases throughout your document so that readers don't notice them. And vary also by echoing words or concepts from the prior sentence (instead of always relying only on transition phrases).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you’re still thinking about “prompt engineering” as a spell-casting exercise, you’re already behind.
Let’s slow down and get clear on what’s actually happening. 🧵
An agent is a system that can break a task into sub-tasks, decide what to do next, evaluate intermediate outputs, and revise its own work.
Instead of one prompt and one answer, you get a loop.
Think less “question and answer” and more “junior associate with a workflow.” (2/7)
The new reality: workflow > wording.
When you’re using an agent, the real leverage is upstream and downstream:
What materials you feed it, how the task is staged, what checkpoints exist, who verifies what, what tools it can access, and what it is forbidden to do. (3/7)
The Supreme Court just heard a major case: whether the President can use a 1977 emergency-powers statute to impose tariffs.
The private respondents—represented by Neal Katyal and a team of elite advocates—filed a merits brief that reads like a legal writing masterclass.
🧵
☑️ Open By Telling a Story, Not Stating a Rule
Most lawyers launch their briefs with procedural history or legal standards.
The best legal writers do something different—they tell a story first. Before readers can care about your rule, they need to care about the stakes. (2/6)
☑️ Turn Your Opponent’s Own Words Into Your Best Evidence
There’s no more devastating move in legal writing than using the other side’s own words against them.
When your opponent concedes a point, don’t let it slide by—put it center stage. (3/6)
Most lawyers spend more time fighting Microsoft Word than using it.
That frustration usually gets chalked up to Word being “quirky.” It isn’t.
Here are the Word tools and skills that actually matter for lawyers and power users in 2026. 🧵
☑️ Start by Letting Styles Do the Heavy Lifting
If you format headings by changing font size and bolding text manually, Word treats every heading as unrelated.
That’s why numbering breaks, tables of contents fall apart, and cross-references stop updating. (2/7)
☑️ Fix Numbering the Way Word Expects You To
Legal numbering fails when people click the numbering button and hope for the best. Stable numbering comes from multilevel lists linked to heading styles.
If you’re still unsure where GenAI fits in your legal writing, start here: summarizing and restyling.
Why these two? Because you’re feeding the tool your own material. Full control. Low risk. High reward.
Here’s how to do it right 👇 (1/8)
1⃣ Summarizing: Compress Without Losing the Thread
GenAI is fast and ruthless when it comes to boiling text down. Give it a long court opinion or a five-page email chain, and it’ll give you something short, useful, and readable. As long as you tell it how. (2/8)
➡️Prompt: Summarize a Court Opinion for Internal Use
You’re giving the model a role, a clear goal, sectioned instructions, and formatting constraints. That reduces fluff and hallucination. (3/8)
The best legal writers are those with the biggest boxes of authority evidence.
These attorneys can work creatively to make readers question, even when a precedent seems like it binds the result.
Here are five tools to help you start filling your authority-evidence toolbox. 🧰
1️⃣ Use multiple types of authority evidence for key points.
Often it’s more persuasive to combine multiple types of authority evidence—a quote, a comparable fact, and so on—rather than relying on only one dimension of an authority. (2/6)
2️⃣ Quote authority.
Use quotes to illustrate how rules work. As with all quotes, use the smallest portion of text that will illustrate the most useful information. (3/6)