Objective PT Products: Memos, Briefs, and Client Letters

Objective PT Products: Memos, Briefs, and Client Letters

Objective products exist to inform a decision-maker, not to persuade an adversary. The reader, usually a supervising attorney or the client, needs an accurate forecast, including the soft spots in your own position. The classic objective product is the interoffice legal memorandum, and it follows a stable skeleton you can reproduce on demand. Begin with a Heading block (To / From / Date / Re). Next, the Question(s) Presented: a precise, one-sentence-per-issue statement that frames the legal question against the key facts. Then a Brief Answer for each question: a candid 'Yes,' 'No,' or 'Probably' followed by a one- or two-sentence reason.

Include a Statement of Facts only if the task memo asks for one; many PTs instruct you to skip it to save time, and you should obey. The heart is the Discussion, organized by issue, each issue worked through CRAC or IRAC. Close with a short Conclusion that gathers your predictions. The Question Presented and Brief Answer pair is where graders confirm you understood the assignment, so make them track the task memo's questions exactly. If the supervisor listed three issues, you write three Questions Presented, three Brief Answers, and three Discussion sub-sections under matching headings.

The discipline of mirroring the task memo's structure is itself worth points, because it proves you read the assignment and gives the grader a checklist to award credit against.

Within the Discussion, devote one labeled section to each issue and march through CRAC: Conclusion, Rule, Analysis (application), Conclusion. Lead each section with a heading lifted from the task memo's questions presented, which is the fastest way to show the grader you answered exactly what was asked and to keep the points organized. State the rule using your synthesized Library authority, citing the statute or case by name as it appears in the Library (for example, 'Under Section 1714' or 'In Garcia v. Mason'). Then apply that rule element by element to the File facts you tagged during intake.

The application paragraph is where points are won or lost: do not merely restate facts and do not merely state the rule, but connect them. For each element, say what the rule requires, identify the specific File fact that satisfies or defeats it, and explain why that fact meets the standard, quoting decisive language from the record. Use analogical reasoning where the Library supplies a comparison case: 'Like the plaintiff in Garcia, who recovered because the landlord had actual notice, our client gave written notice on March 3,' or distinguish where the case cuts against you.

Because the product is objective, every element analysis should acknowledge the counter-argument and then resolve it, producing a balanced prediction rather than one-sided advocacy. A grader scanning your Discussion should be able to see, element by element, both the supporting facts and the resolved weaknesses.

A client letter or opinion letter takes the very same legal analysis and re-voices it for a non-lawyer. The structure shifts to put the bottom line up front: open with a warm but professional salutation, state the answer or recommendation in the first paragraph, then explain the reasoning in plain English. Translate or briefly define any unavoidable legal term, drop full case citations because clients do not need them, and manage expectations honestly. If the case is weak, say so, and if there is litigation risk or cost, name it.

Opinion letters are slightly more formal and often hedge with qualifiers ('in our opinion, based on the facts as you have described them') because the client may rely on them. A demand letter, though sometimes grouped with these, is actually persuasive and is covered in the next section. The list below contrasts the common objective products and the distinguishing move each one requires, so you can switch formats instantly when the task memo names a different product than you expected.

The voice change is not cosmetic; a client who receives a memo full of citations and Latin will not understand the advice, while a partner who receives a chatty letter cannot rely on it. Match the register to the reader the task memo names, and remember that the underlying CRAC analysis is identical across formats, only the packaging and citation density change. When in doubt about how much law to show, ask who is reading: a lawyer wants the authority, a client wants the answer and the practical consequence of acting on it.

Objective Product Types and Their Signature Moves

• Interoffice Memorandum, audience the supervising attorney, voice neutral and technical, signature move Question Presented plus Brief Answer plus CRAC Discussion with full citations.
• Client Advice Letter, audience the client, voice plain English and candid, signature move answer first, jargon defined, expectations managed, no citations.
• Opinion Letter, audience a client or third party who will rely on it, voice formal and qualified, signature move states the opinion with explicit assumptions and caveats.
• Memo to File or Case Assessment, audience the file and future attorneys, voice neutral, signature move a candid strengths-and-weaknesses evaluation with next-step recommendations.

Two failures sink objective PTs. The first is sliding into advocacy, writing a one-sided pitch when the task memo asked for a neutral prediction; if you never mention the other side, you have not done the objective job, because the partner cannot weigh a risk you hid. The second is conclusory analysis, stating the rule and then announcing the result without connecting facts to elements. Fix both by drafting each element as a three-move unit: the rule's requirement, the supporting File fact with a record cite, and the resolved counter-point. Consider a compressed example.

Suppose the Library defines adverse possession as requiring open, notorious, hostile, and continuous use for five years, and the File shows your client fenced and farmed a strip for six years but the neighbor once gave verbal 'permission.' An objective memo states the five-element rule, applies each to the File (the fence and farming satisfy open and notorious, and six years satisfies the period), then squarely confronts the adverse fact: permission may defeat 'hostile' use, citing the Library case on point, and predicts the likely outcome rather than wishing the bad fact away.

That candid, element-by-element, both-sides treatment is exactly what an objective product is graded on, and it is also what makes your prediction trustworthy to the supervising attorney who must act on it.