skills/writing/references/source-craft.md

# Source and craft reference

This reference anchors the writing method in primary rules and court or government guidance. The ABA Model Rules are model text; the controlling jurisdiction’s adopted rules, tribunal rules, and agency practice requirements govern the work.

## Primary rules and official guidance

- [ABA Model Rules Preamble and Scope](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_preamble_scope/): distinguishes advising, advocacy, negotiation, evaluation, and neutral roles; describes legitimate interests, lawful procedure, civility, and the limits of comments versus rule text.
- [ABA Model Rule 1.3 and Comment](https://www.americanbar.org/content/aba-cms-dotorg/en/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_3_diligence/comment_on_rule_1_3/): supports diligent, prompt, committed representation while explaining that the lawyer need not press every possible advantage.
- [ABA Model Rule 2.1 and Comment](https://www.americanbar.org/content/aba-cms-dotorg/en/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_2_1_advisor/comment_on_rule_2_1_advisor/): requires independent professional judgment and candid advice, including honest assessment of unpleasant facts, alternatives, and practical consequences.
- [ABA Model Rule 3.1](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_1_meritorious_claims_contentions/): limits claims and defenses to a nonfrivolous basis in law and fact, including good-faith arguments for changing existing law.
- [ABA Model Rule 3.3 and Comment](https://www.americanbar.org/content/aba-cms-dotorg/en/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal/comment_on_rule_3_3/): permits persuasive advocacy rather than an impartial exposition, but prohibits false or misleading law, facts, evidence, and omissions; requires attention to directly adverse controlling authority.
- [ABA Model Rule 4.1](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_4_1_truthfulness_in_statements_to_others/): governs knowing material misstatements and material omissions when dealing with people other than the tribunal.
- [ABA Model Rule 3.9](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_9_advocate_in_nonadjudicative_proceedings/): for legislative or administrative nonadjudicative appearances, requires disclosure of representative capacity and imports specified advocate-conduct rules.
- [DOJ, “Writing Nuts and Bolts for Appellate Briefs”](https://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab6101.pdf), United States Attorneys’ Bulletin (January 2013): recommends a clear opening and roadmap, separation of law from argument, acknowledgment of adverse controlling authority and bad facts, accurate record treatment, and restrained prose.
- [Seventh Circuit Practitioner’s Handbook for Appeals](https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/rules-procedures/Handbook.pdf) (2020 edition): emphasizes clarity, simplicity, brevity, ordinary language, accurate law and record references, and a temperate tone.
- [Fourth Circuit Rule 28](https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/rules/rule28.html): gives an official example of concise issues, facts, argument, standard of review, and precise relief.
- [EOIR/BIA Practice Manual § 3.6](https://www.justice.gov/eoir/policy-manual-eoir/part-III/bia/chapter-3-6): requires clear, concise, organized briefs with accurate record and authority citations and warns against misstatement or omission of unfavorable facts.
- [SEC Plain Writing Initiative](https://www.sec.gov/about/plain-writing-initiative) (May 12, 2017; updated April 7, 2026): illustrates regulator-facing expectations for clear, concise, well-organized, audience-appropriate language.

## Transferable craft

1. Build an issue tree before drafting: relief, governing test, elements, record proof, authority, and answer to the strongest opposing point.
2. Use the opening and headings as a navigation system. The reader should know the answer, route, and requested action without reconstructing the thesis from background.
3. Put controlling law and application in separate moves. Acknowledge adverse binding law before explaining the distinction, limitation, or requested extension.
4. Treat concessions as a credibility tool: acknowledge a material bad fact or social concern, then explain why the legal test or record does not produce the opponent’s result.
5. Run an authorship-level verification pass. A polished sentence is not safe until its authority, quote, pinpoint, and record proposition are checked.

## Annotated public filings

These filings are public examples of structure and advocacy craft, not templates for copying language or adopting their substantive positions.

- [SEC v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859, Supreme Court docket](https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-859.html) and [Brief for the Petitioner](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-859/278330/20230828183013049_22-859tsUnitedStates.pdf) (filed August 28, 2023): the Solicitor General and SEC frame three legal questions, answer each in the summary, use thesis-bearing headings, distinguish contrary appellate reasoning, and preserve a fallback remedy. Transfer the issue tree and proof map, not the government’s constitutional conclusions.
- [Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC, Nos. 20-1199 and 21-707, Supreme Court docket](https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1199.html) and [Brief for the Petitioner](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1199/222325/20220502145522418_20-1199%2021-707%20SFFA%20Brief%20to%20file%20final.pdf) (filed May 2, 2022): counsel use a concise thesis, separate respondent-specific applications, record-backed headings, and a concession-then-reframe move. Transfer the architecture and disciplined concession, not the filing’s charged rhetoric or merits position.

For a cautionary contemporary judicial example, see [Perez-Castillo v. Blanche, No. 25-1988](https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2026/D06-01/C:25-1988:J:Brennan:aut:T:fnOp:N:3550588:S:0&Submit=Display) (Seventh Circuit, June 1, 2026). The opinion’s sanctions discussion supports a final verification control for AI-assisted or otherwise delegated drafting; it is not an exemplar brief.