A useful research memo is not a collection of legal information in a long file. Its purpose is to help the person who requested it understand the question, the likely answer and the next step without searching through pages of quotations to find them.
When I say that a memo should be readable in two minutes, I do not mean the research should take two minutes or that the issue is simple. The point is that a reader should be able to grasp the short answer quickly, then turn to the detail and sources if they want to test the analysis.
Start with the question that needs an answer
State the question in one or two lines. Make it specific enough to identify the situation and the decision needed. Instead of a broad heading such as “delay under a contract,” a hypothetical question could be: Does the contract language under review allow the supplier to slow performance because the customer has not paid?
If the request itself is unclear, identify what needs confirmation before you begin. A polished memo answering the wrong question still leaves the reader without a useful decision.
Put the short answer at the top
Immediately after the question, state what you found: yes, no or “it depends.” Add the most important condition or qualification. If a missing document or fact prevents a firm conclusion, say so and identify what would change the answer.
The short answer does not replace the analysis. It gives the reader a map: the provisional conclusion first, followed by the reasons for it.
Separate facts from assumptions
Record the facts you relied on and distinguish what the documents establish from what you have temporarily assumed. In the hypothetical example, the delivery date may be two days late, while the absence of an earlier notice may still be an assumption that needs checking.
This distinction matters because one incorrect assumption can change the analysis. Mark what needs verification instead of presenting it as established fact.
Connect the text to the facts, then explain the result
In the analysis, do not repeat provisions whose relevance to the question is unclear. Use a simple sequence: rule or condition, application to the facts, result. For each paragraph, ask: does this help the reader understand or assess the answer?
If the answer turns on a contractual condition or an exception, explain how it affects the facts and note any plausible alternative reading.
Flag risks and open points
Close the analysis with anything that could change the result: a missing document, a clause that must be read with another, an unresolved fact, or a decision that needs a supervisor’s direction. Do not hide uncertainty. Naming it helps the reader choose the next step.
Make the sources traceable
Identify the statute, judgment or contract clause you reviewed, including its section or clause number, source and version or date. If you used several sources, explain what each one contributes instead of adding a long list with no visible connection to the conclusion.
A short structure you can adapt
- Question: What issue or decision needs an answer?
- Short answer: What is the provisional conclusion, and what is its key condition?
- Facts and assumptions: What is established, and what needs confirmation?
- Analysis: How does the text apply to those facts?
- Risks and open points: What could change the result?
- Sources checked: Where can the reader verify the analysis?
Not every memo needs the same headings or order. Its shape depends on the question, the reader, the available documents and the time. What matters is that the answer is easy to find and the reasoning is easy to follow.
If you are building your research method from scratch, start with the Legal Research: From Question to Opinion guide and How to Start Legal Research Properly.
This article discusses research workflow and does not provide a legal opinion on specific facts.