---

name: Article Writing description: Structure and style guidance for law review articles version: 1.0.0

Law Review Article Writing Skill

Domain: Legal academic article structure and style Version: 1.0.0 Last Updated: 2025-12-15

Overview

This skill provides guidance for structuring and writing law review articles, including traditional doctrinal pieces, empirical studies, and interdisciplinary scholarship.

Standard Article Structure

I. Introduction (5-10% of article)

Purpose: Hook the reader, state the thesis, roadmap the article.

Elements:

1. Opening hook - Compelling case, statistic, or puzzle
2. Problem statement - What issue does this article address?
3. Thesis statement - What does this article argue?
4. Contribution claim - Why does this matter? What's new?
5. Roadmap - Brief preview of article structure

Example opening patterns:

• Case study opening: "In Smith v. Jones, the court faced..."
• Puzzle opening: "Legal scholars have long assumed X, but..."
• Stakes opening: "Every year, thousands of defendants..."
• Counter-intuitive opening: "Conventional wisdom holds that..."

II. Background/Context (15-20%)

Purpose: Give readers necessary context without rehashing basics.

Elements:

• Legal doctrine overview (only what's needed)
• Historical development (if relevant)
• Current state of scholarship
• Gap identification (what's missing?)

Calibration: Assume reader is smart lawyer unfamiliar with this specific area.

III. Core Argument (40-50%)

Purpose: Develop and support the thesis.

Structure options:

Linear argument:

CopyA. First supporting claim
   1. Evidence/authority
   2. Analysis
B. Second supporting claim
   1. Evidence/authority
   2. Analysis
C. Third supporting claim
   ...

Problem-solution:

CopyA. Problem detailed
B. Existing solutions critiqued
C. Proposed solution
D. Solution defended

Case study driven:

CopyA. Case 1 analysis
B. Case 2 analysis
C. Pattern identification
D. Theoretical implications

IV. Counterarguments (10-15%)

Purpose: Acknowledge and respond to objections.

Best practices:

• State opposing view fairly and strongly
• Distinguish weak vs. strong objections
• Provide substantive responses
• Concede points where appropriate

V. Implications/Applications (10-15%)

Purpose: Show what follows from your argument.

Elements:

• Doctrinal implications
• Policy recommendations
• Future research directions
• Limitations acknowledgment

VI. Conclusion (5%)

Purpose: Synthesize and close.

Elements:

• Restate thesis (fresh language)
• Summarize key contributions
• End with broader significance or call to action

Writing Style Guidelines

Voice and Tone

• Authoritative but not arrogant - State claims confidently, acknowledge limitations
• Precise - Legal writing demands exactness
• Accessible - Avoid unnecessary jargon
• Engaging - Vary sentence structure, use active voice

Common Style Rules

1. Prefer active voice

   • Weak: "The statute was interpreted by the court..."
   • Strong: "The court interpreted the statute..."

2. Avoid nominalizations

   • Weak: "The implementation of the policy..."
   • Strong: "Implementing the policy..."

3. Be specific

   • Weak: "Courts have generally held..."
   • Strong: "The Second Circuit has consistently held..."

4. Use strong verbs

   • Weak: "The defendant made an argument that..."
   • Strong: "The defendant argued that..."

5. Eliminate throat-clearing

   • Cut: "It is important to note that..."
   • Cut: "It should be emphasized that..."
   • Cut: "It goes without saying that..."

Paragraph Structure

IRAC for analytical paragraphs:

• Issue - What question does this paragraph address?
• Rule - What legal principle applies?
• Analysis - How does the rule apply to facts?
• Conclusion - What follows?

Topic sentences:

• Every paragraph needs a clear topic sentence
• Topic sentence should advance the argument
• Reader should understand paragraph's point from first sentence

Transition Strategies

Between sections:

• End section with forward reference
• Begin section with backward reference
• Use explicit transition sentences

Between paragraphs:

• Logical connectors (however, moreover, therefore)
• Reference to previous paragraph's conclusion
• Parallel structure

Footnote Density

Academic standard: Approximately 1 footnote per 2-3 sentences of text.

When to footnote:

• Direct quotations (always)
• Specific claims of fact
• Legal rules and holdings
• Others' arguments you're engaging
• Supporting examples

When NOT to footnote:

• Your own original analysis
• General knowledge
• Logical deductions from cited premises

Length Calibration

Available Workflows

• workflows/structure-argument.md - Develop article outline
• workflows/integrate-sources.md - Weave sources into argument
• workflows/peer-review-prep.md - Prepare for submission

Quality Checklist

Before completion, verify:

• Thesis clearly stated in introduction
• Each section advances the central argument
• Counterarguments addressed fairly
• Citations support claims made
• Transitions smooth between sections
• Conclusion synthesizes without mere repetition
• No unsupported assertions
• Voice consistent throughout

---

Legal scholarship persuades through rigorous argument and careful evidence.