I recently found a draft advice I wrote as a junior lawyer and it’s really different to how I would write an advice today.
Advice writing is a skill that comes with experience. But there are quite a few things that junior lawyers can do straight away to really stand out in the drafts they present to their supervising colleagues.
In this guide, my goal is to set out the foundational skills and tips for advice writing that is transferable across different practice areas. It covers:
A well-written legal advice provides clear and concise guidance to the client on the legal issues at hand and offers practical solutions tailored to the client’s specific needs and circumstances.
The advice should be based on a thorough understanding of the relevant law and regulations, as well as any relevant facts or documents provided by the client.
It should also take into account the client’s commercial or strategic objectives, and should provide a clear explanation of the risks and benefits associated with different courses of action.
Ultimately, the goal of legal advice is to enable the client to make informed decisions that minimize legal risks and achieve their desired outcomes.
The process from starting to finalising a draft advice usually looks something like this:
Let’s say you’re a construction lawyer acting for a homeowner. Your client has currently engaged a builder to build their house. The house itself has been completed and handed over but your client has found defects in the work that the builder has completed (set out in a report that their Superintendent has prepared). The builder is currently completing landscaping works at the property. Your client has asked you for advice on how to get the builder to rectify the defects or otherwise claim against the builder for those defects.
In my early years, I might have prepared an advice that looks something like this:
When we look back at the purpose of a good legal advice we’ve set out above, some of the common issues with this advice are:
So how could we make this better?
Now with a few years of experience, here’s how I try to approach advice writing (and how this could improve the example advice set out above):
A general structure would look something like:
🔹 Advice requested
This restates the question that the client has asked. In your initial discussions with the client, you may find that question that they asked you for advice on is actually different than the real question they needed to ask to reflect the facts and get the outcomes that they want.
Whether or not the question has evolved with your discussions with the client, it should be restated so that it’s clear to the reader what is being answered. Especially when the instructing client might pass on the advice to somebody else to read without the benefit of your discussions (e.g. their colleagues).
🔹 Summary and recommendation
This summarises your advice and provides a clear recommendation of what you consider to be the best option. It should set out the steps involved in the recommended option and a concise explanation of why you recommend it.
Sometimes it’s helpful to set out a ‘traffic light’ approach or a table that ranks the various options along with the reasons why.
Numbered headings and signposts (e.g. “Section 1 sets out X, Section 2 sets out Y…) also help with the ‘unwrapping’. It’s also good to signpost the sections further in your advice that sets out the detailed arguments supporting your recommendation (e.g. as set out in Section X below).
Ideally, the client could just pick up this section (along with the ‘advice requested’ section) and have a clear understanding of what they should do – based on your recommendation.
🔹 Background / assumptions
This sets out the background facts, documents you’ve relied on, as well as any assumptions that underpin your advice.
Again, the goal is for somebody to be able to pick up the advice and read it without the benefit of all the discussions that you’ve had, or the involvement in the project that your client has had.
Any assumptions set out in the advice should not come as a surprise to your client. If they are fundamental to your advice, then they should be discussed with your client beforehand. It can be frustrating to receive an advice that contains assumptions which are just wrong and undermines the whole advice you have paid for.
🔹 Detailed arguments in support
This sets out the detailed reasoning behind your option. It could refer to specific sections of the contract, legislation or other material.
Where possible, it’s good to provide extracts to those referenced sections so that the client doesn’t have to flick between documents.
This section restates the recommendation and the ‘next steps’ that the client can follow, or areas that you can provide further assistance in (e.g. preparing a formal legal claim).
🔹 Schedules / attachments for supporting documentation
Any referenced material in your advice can be set out in schedules or attachments to the advice. If you have prepared any flowcharts, tables etc. for the advice, then they can also be included here.
Instead of “from our analysis of the contract, there are three ways you could claim for time and cost relief in the event of a cyclone – please let us know which option you would like to undertake and we can help prepare the claim”.
It would sound more like “in our view, the best avenue for claiming time and cost relief under the contract in the event of a cyclone is [explain Option A]. This would involve [set out the steps] and [presents the best prospects of success while preserving the commercial relationship]. Alternatively, the claim could also be supplemented by [Options B and C] – however these present the following additional risks beyond [Option A]…”
This could mean including a definitions section or extracting key parts of the contract / legislation / case law.
Read the advice out loud. If it sounds weird – or you’re struggling to breathe – rewrite it.
With any contractual regime, regulatory rule or case law principle – tie it back to the commercial problem / client’s situation.
For example: “While the above course of action would result in additional costs for [client], it would provide [up to 8 weeks of] time relief which we understand is the key concern given the size of the liquidated damages that [client] would incur under the contract.”
These days, I use more diagrams, flowcharts and tables in my advices – esp. for summarising contractual processes.
If we take the tips and steps in this guide and apply it to the same situation as before, here’s what you might end up with (as an improvement to the newer lawyer’s advice):
