When imagining the best legal writers, you might think of big names at big firms.
But small firms have powerhouses, too.
Case in point: A ridiculously good brief penned by a plaintiff's attorney at the boutique Hilton Parker LLC.
Check this out. 1/X
In the introduction:
☑️ You need no background to get into the story.
☑️ Facts do the heavy lifting instead of opinions.
☑️ Readers aren't bogged down by case law.
☑️ Storytelling is center stage (as are emotional facts); sentences are about actors carrying out actions.
After those two warm-up paragraphs make the legal pitch, the lawyers weave in their emotional one.
Once you've explained how the law favors you, include the why—why would adopting your position be a good thing?
Do the hard work for readers by explaining first before making them juggle the details and complexity.
Notice how the first sentences throughout the brief dish up the specific, persuasive points (rather than bland topic sentences).
Examples are a superpower. Need to illustrate a complicated legal doctrine? Share a quick hypothetical or emblematic case.
Need to show your readers the line drawn by the law? Share an example of both when the law is satisfied and when it's not.
Need to drive home a critical point? Share several examples that build to a single conclusion.
Then there's the small-picture style.
In this example, notice how the lawyers use active voice to paint the opposing party as a bad actor, and they use passive voice to put the victim on the receiving end of those bad acts.
The lawyers use concrete verbs throughout the brief.
Verbs are an easy way to make your writing simpler, easier to understand, and more forceful.
Simple sentences sell. The same goes for familiar, everyday language that we can all process without effort. Many of the sentences in this brief require little to no punctuation because they are so simple.
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)