If you're reading this, you're likely facing complex claims by or against a large and well funded adversary. Our service is here to help you win the early motions to dismiss, later motions for summary judgment, the full range of possible motions practice in between, and generate pre- and post- trial/settlement briefs that may be required. Most U.S. states have rules of procedure similar to Federal Rules 12 and 56. Generating oppositions to these motions, or bulletproofing your complaint to survive them, is what we do most often and best.

We have a minimal in-house staff and supplement our ability to serve you as necessary by a network of contract attorneys. Without exception, all work is produced by a U.S. law school graduate who is either currently admitted or was at one time admitted to practice in one of the 50 U.S. states. While we are a relatively affordable service, we take pride in our core competencies of drafting persuasive legal argument based on original research, and always strive to give you the best chance of winning your case.

If you're wondering why you've never heard of us before, it's because most of our business is from referrals, but we do occasionally advertise. Nothing inspires us more than hearing from our clients who've prevailed using our drafting services. And we do more than just draft documents. You can expect us to provide creative, substantive insights that will help perfect your procedural and trial strategies. Over the years, we've become acutely aware of the judicial bias against small firm litigants, and are here to be your partner in the process of prevailing against the odds.

Because of our affordability, our clients are usually the underdog, but, they often prevail.

It all starts with you, with your requirements and your budget, with your standards and your timetable. There's never any pre-project charge for speaking with us or for initial document review or other communications. We only bill after you've pre-approved the project cost and given the green light, and typically only ask for payment after the work is complete.

The quickest way to start the proposal process is to forward either a brief description of your question(s) of law and/or the documents relevant to the required memorandum. But, we love hearing from you, so please don't hesitate to call or chat with us online first, if that's what you're most comfortable with.

We price each project based on the anticipated amount of effort for completion. We usually offer either a fixed cost for the delivery, or, an estimated overall project cap in the case of a large, multi-stage job. There's no monthly subscription requirement - we're always grateful for your interest. We do, however, afford special treatment to our frequent fliers such as lower rates and expedited scheduling.

Our proposals include more than just pricing information. We'll give you a preview of the landscape of applicable legal authority, along with a preliminary plan and outline of the envisioned delivery. Your experience and expertise is at least as important to the process as ours, and our process involves fully integrating your direction into the work we do for you.

We're accessibly affordable relative to similar services that provide work by U.S. attorneys. Our labor rates vary quite a bit based on the current level of demand, our relationship with you, which one of our contributors is doing the work, and the amount of time we have to complete the project, but will tend to fall in the $80-$110/hr range. If you're a sole practitioner whom we haven't heard from in the past five years, we're currently able to extend an introductory $85/hr rate.

Each of the documents linked here are examples of winning briefs drafted by our writers for past clients. The names and other identifying information have been redacted as per our uncompromising privacy policy.

WRITING SAMPLE A - U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled in our client's favor, denying dismissal of our debt primacy claim over the Defendant banking association. The brief argued that the Rooker—Feldman doctrine did not bar actions by nonparties to the earlier state-court judgment simply because, for purposes of preclusion law, they could be considered in contractual privity with a party to the judgment. The opinion hinged on our contention that Plaintiff was not a party to the prior litigation and that state res judicata doctrine thus did not apply to collaterally bar the plaintiff's (our client) suit. The court rejected the jurisdictional and estoppel defenses and denied dismissal.

WRITING SAMPLE B - We obtained an extension to cure service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(4)(B) in the U.S. Northern District of Georgia. The sample brief is in response to the state agency's motion to dismiss based on the failure to perfect service under subsection (m) of the Rule.

WRITING SAMPLE C - In Supreme Court of New York, Westchester County, we drafted a post-trial memorandum on behalf of the property owner that contended that plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie case, resulting in a judgment in favor of defendant (our client).

WRITING SAMPLE D - In the Circuit Court for the County of Arlington County, Va., we prepared a Motion to Exclude Expert Evidence in a products liability suit against the county and kiosk designer. Our brief in opposition was filed on behalf of the minor plaintiff, who was injured by a manufacturing defect. Plaintiff prevailed on the motion and later settled out of court.

WRITING SAMPLE E - In the Common Pleas Court in Montgomery County, Pa., the plaintiff filed our brief in response to an Order to Show Cause why his appeal of an order denying his Motion for Sanctions under Rule 229.1 should not be Quashed. The settlement court ruled in his favor and his appeal was re-instated.

WRITING SAMPLE F - In the Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia County (First Judicial District of Pennsylvania), we drafted a Memorandum in Support of Pl.'s Motion for Reconsideration of Pre-trial Preclusion Order in an action against an international tire manufacturer, resulting in vacatur of the court's evidentiary ruling precluding all tire-related evidence at trial.