version: "1.0.0" name: draft-brief description: "Drafts court filings — motions, memoranda of law, appellate briefs — as court-ready .docx, with Midpage research behind every citation. Use to \"draft a motion to dismiss,\" \"write the brief.\"" metadata: version: 0.2.0 author: midpage

Draft Brief

Draft and format a court-ready filing and hand back the .docx. Briefs, motions, memoranda of law, oppositions, replies, appellate briefs. Complaints and other pleadings are out of scope — if asked to draft one, say so and stop. Read the shared guides first — they carry the method this skill assumes: references/litigation-writing.md (how to write it), references/court-rules.md (how to find the governing rules), references/citations.md (how every cite links), and references/legal-docx.md (rendering). The research method is below — it is the heart of this skill.

Workflow

1. Get up to speed. Read any relevant uploads and consult the relevant record documents

(analyzeDocketReport for posture and the operative filings, analyzeDocketFiling to read what they actually say). Every record fact you later assert carries a linked filing cite.

1. Preliminary research. Don't jump to conclusions about what to argue; research with

Midpage to determine what the strongest arguments are and what makes procedural sense.

1. Craft the research-based narrative structure. Consult

references/litigation-writing.md. Before doing even more research, settle on structure and arguments based on your preliminary research.

1. MOST IMPORTANT: Exhaustive, iterative research per issue. Make a research plan and

follow it, using the method below. The goal is not to surface and analyze the obvious opinions only; you want to find the strongest, most favorable cases that will carry each argument the extra mile. Don't settle for any case supporting your proposition — find the favorable ones with devastating language, framings, facts, and the right outcomes. Each argument needs to be dense with case-law citations and compelling analysis. Find the cases and arguments that HURT and confront them head on — distinguish them or argue they are not determinative.

1. Get the governing rules per references/court-rules.md: case orders → judge's

individual practices → local/ECF rules → federal baseline. Capture length limits, font/margins/spacing, required sections, caption form, certificates, TOC/TOA triggers — each linked to its source. Surface conflicts (the more specific layer controls; show both).

1. Write it per references/litigation-writing.md: theme stated up front, point headings

that argue, rule synthesis not book reports, quotes woven into prose, adverse authority confronted head-on.

1. Render with the brief profile (references/legal-docx.md). Thread any rule-set

spacing/font/margin through D.builders("brief", { lineSpacing }); defaults stand when rules are silent. Validate the rendered file against the verifiable requirements (length, font, margins, spacing, required sections, certificates).

Research with Midpage (the method)

All law comes from the Midpage tools this session. search finds candidates; findInOpinion previews; `analyzeOpinion` is what permits a citation — no case is cited without it.

• Frame before you search. Pin the forum (court, circuit, state) — it controls what binds

and how to filter. Reduce each question to the operative element actually in dispute ("does an eight-month delay defeat likely irreparable harm in the Ninth Circuit?" — not "can we get an injunction?"). Each distinct issue gets its own searches and its own section. For every issue, write down what the other side will argue — that defines half your research targets.

• Search semantic, parallel, filtered. Concept- and proposition-style queries, never

boolean. One issue per query, up to four in parallel. Filter to the forum (jurisdictionType, circuits/courts/states, dates when recency matters); binding authority first, persuasive labeled as such. If you filter publishStatus, run a parallel unknown query too (for California, default to published plus unknown). Need exact wording? Stop guessing in search — run findInOpinion on a promising case.

• Triage before you spend analysis. highlights show why a case matched — previews only,

never quote them. treatment gauges whether it's good law and how heavily relied on. findInOpinion is the free double-click before an analyzeOpinion call.

• Branch from the best case. When a strong case surfaces, mine it: analyzeOpinion it and

pull the authorities the opinion itself leans on (the rule it states usually quotes the case you actually want); then search its key holding language as its own query to find later cases applying it. A case the court's own opinions repeatedly cite is worth more than three you found cold.

• Iterate until it's scorched earth. Re-query each issue with new framings — the best

case's holding language, the opposing side's framing, narrower fact patterns, the remedy angle — until new queries keep returning the same leading cases. That saturation is the signal you've mapped the field; anything less is settling.

• The `analyzeOpinion` gate, on every case you cite. Pass a question naming the exact

element. Check `doesNotAddress` first — if your point is listed, the case does not stand for it, however close the language looks. Build sentences from supportedPropositions (each carries a cite-ready proposition, a verified quote, and a deeplinkURL). Lead with core_holding over supporting_analysis; never sell background as the holding. Carry scope qualifiers into your sentence. A concurrence or dissent (opinionSection) is never presented as the court's holding. Surface negative treatment honestly — if you must use a caution/negative case, say so.

• Research the other side as hard as your own. For every issue, run searches framed from

the opposing position; identify the case they will lead with and analyzeOpinion it too — that's what step 4's confrontation is built from.

• Silence and splits are findings. No controlling authority on point, or a genuine split,

gets reported as such — never papered over with an off-point or out-of-jurisdiction cite.

Scope discipline

• Format, required sections, and limits are always in scope. When a rule forces a change,

name the rule and link the source.

• Drafting substance (argument, facts) is in scope when drafting from scratch or when

asked.

• **Working from the user's existing draft: do not rewrite their arguments, reorder their

theories, or change their voice** unless they ask or a rule requires it (get sign-off before cutting argument to meet a limit). Note substantive problems you spot as a brief, separate observation — never silently implement them.

Hard rules

• Never recall a rule, holding, quote, or record fact from memory. Rules come from sources

retrieved this session; case law from analyzeOpinion; record facts from analyzeDocketFiling. No invented case, quote, pin cite, statute, or rule, ever.

• Honor doesNotAddress, distinguish holdings from dicta and majority from

concurrence/dissent, surface negative treatment.

• The attorney owns the filing. Flag open items and judgment calls plainly; never imply the

document is filing-ready without their review.

• Brief-writing is research-led. Do thorough, iterative research with Midpage.