Law Students Starter Pack: “How to Ace a Legal Opinion Competition.”
Credits to Bang Gery Fathurrachman for making this happened, as he was constantly pushing me to create and write my own blog. Although this blog is initially intended to discuss some legal issues that have arisen, well, I am highly confident there are still plenty of law students out there who aim to win a Legal Opinion Competition (“LOC”) like I used to be. Hence, this debut article will be “one of a kind” among my future articles, and I hope this will be beneficial.
This article wouldn’t be in a lump of whole meat without the guidance and insights given by these legal professionals that had been helping me during those LOCs, which are: Bang Dicky Winata; Bang Ricky Vinando; Bang Muhammad Andrew; Bang Roni Heilig Merpaung; and Bang Oepangat. Therefore, I am truly blessed.
To begin with, I divide this article into two sections:
1) The Format
2) Tips & Trick
Let’s start.
1. The Format of Legal Opinion
In my opinion, there is no standard format of how a Legal Opinion should be written or drafted. However, the most important thing is how you can delivered it to the reader (your Client in the case given) as simple as possible. Not too wordy and lengthy.
“Delivery is the paramount part of a legal opinion,” as Bang Gery said.
However, students often use Facts, Issues, Regulation, Analysis, and Conclusion (“FIRAC”) as the most common format when participating in LOC. I used the FIRAC format as well during competitions that I had been joining. Still, I added “Qualification” and “Assumption” too because practically these two sections are kind of necessary to be attached.
A Qualification will limit the given opinion to be used accordingly, such as “we do not provide opinion on commercial, financial, and tax aspects.”
In addition to that, an Assumption is a list of factual matters which the lawyer can’t reasonably check.
I list assumptions so that my opinion will be easier to draft. Sometimes the case given contained loopholes so that participants could create their own “possible” facts. Therefore, it’s best when your opinion is also based on the assumption you’ve stated before; it would give the same understanding of the case between you and the judges.
In practice, some Law Firms tend to put the Conclusion at the top of the page and change it with “Executive Summary” (Ringkasan Eksekutif):
In a nutshell, the Executive Summary is a little longer than the Conclusion but more condensed than the Analysis. Thus, on top of that it’s more readable to the Client as they don’t have to scroll down first to find the Conclusion at the end of the page.
For the Qualifications, Assumptions, and even the Regulatory Index, I usually put it on the Appendix (Lampiran) because the Committee gave a page limit with approximately eight to ten pages, but not with the “Appendix.” In conclusion, I would rather spend my entire page limit with just the analysis because that’s the most critical part in drafting a Legal Opinion, right?
Bear in mind, if the Committee has already determined the format, follow the stated provisions, or otherwise, you’ll get minus points (It was based on my experience where my analysis accuracy is relatively high, but I didn’t add “Suggestion and Recommendation” section as it was strictly required. Consequently, I lost and placed at the 7th rank)
For the structure of the analysis, try to draft it from general to specific. It means you ought to break down and explain it from the highest regulation, the implementing regulations, and then associate it with the case. I broke it down point by point, not paragraph, so it wouldn’t be lengthy.
2. Tips and Tricks
Drafting a Legal Opinion with the format that I have stated above is one step ahead, but knowing these tips and tricks would be ten steps ahead of others, I might say.
Well, it’s because most of these “secret recipes” are from trusted sources alongside my seven times experiences participated in LOCs. Here we go.
a. Try to paraphrase (membumikan) the regulation’s articles
Let’s assume that the Client in the case given doesn’t have any law background at all. Meanwhile, some articles in our regulations, Civil Code (KUHPerdata) for example, are quite hard to understand. A legal glossary can be complicated and unfamiliar to hear. Therefore, we can’t expect the Client to understand either. Obviously, the best way is to paraphrase articles simply and generally with acceptable terms.
b. Not only legalistic but also commercial
Although having a robust analysis based on many regulations is quite an accomplishment for a college student, adding some “practical” side will differentiate you from other participants.
Sometimes the regulation says “prohibited,” but it can be circumvented or multi-interpreted to say the opposite in practice. Clients who come to us with problems certainly not only ask for clarification on how the regulation governs it (because they actually have their legal division to read it, right?) but is there any other solution if it’s prohibited or not regulated?
Therefore, we must have a commercially-minded solution; regardless, we don’t provide opinions on the commercial aspect. The most feasible way to provide it is to ask the lawyer what actually happened in the field. If it is a litigation case, are there some strategies commonly used to make our client win and obtain their right to receive compensations?
c. Two is better than one…solution
When you research and analyze the regulations, you may find several options or solutions to answer the given case. For instance, aside from the client ability to file a lawsuit to the civil court, they can settle their dispute trough to alternative dispute resolution, i.e. arbitration, mediation, or reconciliation.
However, the most crucial point in this strategy is telling which one is the most recommended and less-risk option for the client to choose. It is useless if you have given several options but did not conclude what’s best for them. You could tell it in the Conclusion/Executive Summary, depending on the format.
d. Strengthen your arguments
We’re done with robust regulation-based analysis, commercially-minded opinion, and more than one solution. But, the next stage is try to provide a court verdict to your legal opinion.
It was happened back when I suggested the Client to use “a class action lawsuit” in a civil court. Back then, it was more effective as well as more efficient in receiving enormous amount of compensation, and get more attention to public, so that the defendant will be more pressured to settle the dispute.
Then, I told them a similar case had previously happened, and the judge granted their lawsuit. I also provided the verdict number to reassured it. As a result, I snatched the champion of that legal opinion competition.
Another tip is to integrate doctrines into your legal opinion, especially when the case is civil-law-related. I will add doctrines from Subekti, Rosa Agustina, J. Satrio, etc., to support my argument and analysis if the case is challenging the validity of agreement.
However, doctrines are barely used if it is for a corporate case, like acquisition, mining, capital market, etc. This means, a regulation-based analysis is actually enough as long as we can comprehensively analyze it.
*A little tip, try to add doctrines from university professors that conducted that the competition. Who knows, one of the judges turns out to be that university lecturer, and our legal opinion would be more likely to gain sympathy.
e. Be realistic
Let’s pretend you are lawyer from a law firm. In order to do so, make your legal opinion as real as if you are a real lawyer, including but not limited to:
1. Create a letterhead with the law firm’s logo and address;
2. Write the preface part at the top of the page;
3. Add a “confidentiality” watermark;
4. If the opinion is telling the process, explain your opinion with a “scheme” rather than put it into paragraph so it wouldn’t look wordy.
5.Include some part of the agreement pages in the Appendix.
I once made a one-page prospectus and included it in the Appendix. I made it because that section is quite critical to be discussed in my analysis.
At last, this article has come to an end.
Thank you so much for the time you have wasted for having to reach this penultimate part. I wish you a stroke of good luck, and don’t stop trying!
TSA
