Skip to Main Content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

Legal Writing

This Guide assists first-year law students with the CREAC format used in legal writing.

Memorandum of Law Structure







~ start the question with one of the following words: whether, is, does, can, did, or under

~ reference the governing law and precisely state the legal issue raised by the determinative facts

~ include enough key, determinative facts to give context to the question



~ start with a very short statement of your conclusion about the issue (No, Probably No, Yes, Probably Yes)

~ concisely and precisely answer the Question Presented in the first sentence of the BA

~ state the black-letter rule of law applicable to the issue in a sentence or two

~ briefly apply the rule to the key, determinative facts (essentially, a summary of the larger application from the Discussion)



~ begin with a sentence or two laying out the client's core legal issue and/or introducing the other key characters

~ include the legally significant facts that a court would use in analyzing and applying the rule to the instant case

~ include essential background facts that are necessary for following the narrative of the instant case

~ present the facts accurately and chronologically (or topically if the facts do not lend themselves to chronology)

~ end with a sentence or two bringing the reader up-to-speed about the instant case's procedural posture




~ precisely and concisely state the likelihood of the outcome

~ precisely and concisely answer the legal question and acknowledge the governing law

~ include a because statement that precisely and concisely explains the reasons for the outcome (how the determinative facts trigger the rule)

 Overarching Rule

~ begin with a conclusion sentence that applies the relevant parts of the rule to the determinative facts of the instant case

~ start broad and with each sentence funnel down to the most narrow part of the rule to be analyzed (observe proper hierarchy of authority)

~ include a purpose statement that follows the funneled part of the rule and clearly and concisely explains the reason for the rule's existence and/or its policy considerations

~ include a dismissal sentence(s) (if applicable) that clearly and concisely dismisses the discussion and application of obvious, uncontroversial, or uncontested elements of a governing rule

~ conclude with a Roadmap sentence that mirrors the substance of the conclusion sentence but gives more explanation of the determinative facts that trigger the rule


A-Nested-CREAC: Conclusion sentence specific to the first element

     Rule specific to the first element

       Explanation of rule governing first element

~ illustrate cases with binding-effect that have a good number of facts that are analogous to or importantly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case

~ begin with a thesis sentence that clearly and concisely states the legal principle of law that the subsequent case illustrates

~ include all relevant facts that support the thesis statement and the court's reasoning, and state them clearly, concisely, and accurately

~ clearly, concisely, and accurately state each court's holding as to the issue or question presented

~ clearly, concisely, and accurately state each court's reasoning as to the determinative facts that informed the holding

       Application of rule to facts for first element (and possible counter-analysis) 
~ begin with a conclusion sentence that effectively sets up the point of the analysis 
~ follow the conclusion with an Explanatory sentence that effectively sets up the forthcoming fact-to-fact comparison between the instant case and precedent case(s) by stating how the relevant language from the rule applies similarly or distinctively in both cases
~ include fact-to-fact comparisons that explain how the key, determinative facts from the instant case and precedent case(s) are the same or importantly different
~ acknowledge the holding of the precedent case in the fact-to-fact comparisons
~ conclude with a thus/therefore statement that acknowledges the precedent case(s) and explains the predictive holding in a because statement that reiterates the analogous and/or distinctive facts
     Conclusion for first element
B-Nested-CREAC: Conclusion sentence specific to the second element
       Rule specific to the second element
       Explanation of rule governing second element
       Application of rule to facts for second element (and possible counter-analysis)
       Conclusion for second element
C-Nested-CREAC: Conclusion sentence specific to the third element
       Rule specific to the third element
       Explanation of rule governing third element
       Application of rule to facts for third element (and possible counter-analysis)
       Conclusion for third element
~ concisely and precisely answer the client's question in the first sentence
~ explain the answer precisely and concisely but avoid an unnecessary retread of the longer application from the Discussion
~ finish with a thus/therefore statement that precisely and concisely states the implication of the answer to the client's question