Bespoke Legal Drafting

PLoS, a division of Pre Litis Services, focuses on the offshore delivery of bespoke Professional Legal Services to the Attorney /Client, who, in turn, represent their clients at the State / Federal Courts of USA and Canada.

A dedicated team of 25 Lawyers based at Mumbai / India, spearheaded by the PLoS Founder, a J.D. from the USA, are engaged into the drafting of Bespoke Legal pleadings (notice / fact-based), motions, and various representations, which are most apposite for multi-jurisdiction State / Federal Courts of USA and Canada.

Our team dedicated to legal research and drafting adds value by delivering bespoke quality pleadings, motion, and representations as per the individual clients’ case. With such well-pleaded legal briefs and motions suitable for State / Federal Courts of the USA and Canada, the Attorney/Client can focus on the tasks they do the best!

1. Scope: We stay within the four corners of the agreed assignment. One of the techniques followed by us is to focus on the relevant parts of a decision and review the numbered West headnotes that track the West case digest and precede the decision itself. However, we never cite to, quote from, or rely on headnotes or lawsuit digests as they are not primary authority.

2. Organization: We follow the CREAC format (unless the Attorney/Client guides otherwise) because it provides all necessary elements of the proper analytic structure.  CREAC is an acronym for (i) Conclusion, (ii) Rule, (iii) rule Explanation, (iv) Application/Analysis, (Counter-Analysis), and (v) Conclusion.

3. Conclusion:  We state the conclusion in the introductory paragraph, avoiding words like “if” and “unless.”

4. Rule Statement: We accurately identify and articulate the rule of law. The rule statement stated by us (without reference to parties involved) is clear, concise, complete, and precise. We look to the primary authority (cases and statutes) for the applicable rule.  We do not rely on a holding or standards drawn from secondary sources of persuasion, such as a dictionary, Restatement, or treatise (ALR, AmJur).

5. Rule Explanation: After stating the rule, we explain the rule of law immediately before applying it. Elucidation of a governing law involves discussing the factors courts consider in determining whether the legal standard (or its element) has been satisfied.

(a)     For example, merely stating that intent is required is not sufficient to resolve the question of whether the element has been satisfied.  We cannot read the mind of the actor, so we need to examine the totality of the circumstances.  Therefore, it is necessary to discuss examples of what courts have looked for in the actor’s conduct to determine whether there was the intent.

(b)     Now, this is where precedent (prior court decisions) comes into play.  Without precedent, a prediction regarding intent would be speculative and conclusory, i.e., without basis.  When we rely on a prior holding, we demonstrate the strength of our conclusion to the reader.  When we introduce a case, we first give the reader some background to understand the context.  We briefly discuss the (i) key facts, (ii) holding, and (iii) rationale (reasoning) of the court – in that order.

(c)       Key Facts: We state all the relevant facts from the case. The discussion of the events illustrates to the reader how the rule was applied and interpreted in that situation.  The key is to recognize and identify which facts were relevant and material to the court’s decision. Material facts are those that are “outcome determinative” (those that help the court determine the issue before it).  However, a precedent case will only apply to our facts if the facts are similar.  We urge enough points so the reader can fully understand what happened in the precedent case.  We do not assume that the reader has read or will read the case; the reader is relying on us to provide all of that information.

(d)       Holding: We correctly identify and state the court’s holding. We limit our statement of the court’s holding to the specific issue(s) we are discussing in our case.

(e)       Rationale: We correctly identify and explain the court’s reasoning as to why the court held as it did.  Possible phrasing in our legal document: “The court held. . .” “The court reasoned. . ..”  Stating the rationale helps us to identify which facts were relevant in the precedent case. It also helps the reader understand the importance of specific circumstances in the client’s case.

6. Application/ Analysis: We apply precedent by comparing and contrasting specific facts and explaining what the analogies mean. We take care to finish discussing the prior case entirely before beginning to address our client’s issue. The heart of the legal analysis is analogical reasoning: comparing and contrasting the facts of our case with the circumstances of the precedent cases and predicting, in light of the argument of the precedent cases, how those factual similarities or differences will influence the outcome of our situation.

7. Conclusion: Finally, we wrap up the discussion with a prediction and a brief reason for that prediction.

Additional Services to the Attorney/Client (provided by the J.D.): Drafting of (i) persuasive legal arguments, (ii) Objective Memos, (iii) Legal Opinion letters, (iv) Demand Letters, (v) emails, and any specific communication.

RUSH SERVICE by the J.D. is offered within 24/48 Hours to assist the Attorney / Client in meeting their deadlines.

In our bespoke legal drafting, it is our constant endeavor to deliver letter-perfect work, which eliminates (i) inferior sentence structure, (ii) improper punctuation, and or (iii) any other mechanical errors.

If you have questions, please email at info@offshorepls.com