---
name: hlr-writing-style
description: Use when shaping the prose and structure of a Harvard Law Review (HLR) piece for a generalist, student-edited audience — clear introductions, disciplined Parts, and the heavy-footnote register of legal scholarship. Polishes how it reads; it does not forge the claim (hlr-thesis-and-contribution) or format citations (hlr-sources-and-bluebook).
---

# Writing Style (hlr-writing-style)

HLR prose must persuade a **generalist, student-edited** audience: the editors who screen and the readers
across every legal field. The register is distinctive — long, formal, **heavily footnoted** Articles in
which the text carries the argument and the footnotes carry the support and qualifications. This skill
makes the piece readable, front-loaded, and legible past any one specialty.

## When to trigger

- Drafting or revising the introduction, Part headings, or transitions
- A reader says the piece is "hard to follow" or "buries the point"
- The text-vs-footnote division of labor feels wrong (argument in footnotes, throat-clearing in text)
- Polishing before placement (after the argument and citations are sound)

## The HLR introduction bar

By the end of the introduction the reader should know the **problem, the claim, the stakes, and the
roadmap** — in that order, and early. Build the funnel:

1. **Hook with the live problem** — the case, split, or development, stated concretely.
2. **State the claim** — your thesis, in a declarative sentence, on page one or two.
3. **Stake the contribution** — what prior law/scholarship gets wrong and what you add.
4. **Preview the payoff** — who acts differently if you are right.
5. **Roadmap** — a short Part-by-Part map (not a padded paragraph of signposting).

## Register: text vs. footnotes (the distinctive law-review division)

| Belongs in the **text** | Belongs in the **footnotes** |
|-------------------------|------------------------------|
| The argument and its logic | Authority for each proposition (pincited) |
| The claim and the prescription | Qualifications, caveats, and side disputes |
| The hard case and its resolution | String cites, parentheticals, contrary authority |
| What a generalist must follow | What a specialist may want to verify |

> The text should read as a clean argument even if a reader ignored the footnotes; the footnotes should
> let a skeptic verify every step. Argument that hides in footnotes is a structural error.

## Prose discipline

- **Plain, formal, active.** Legal scholarship is formal but not turgid; prefer the verb to the
  nominalization ("the court held," not "a holding was issued").
- **Define terms of art once**, then use them consistently — generalist editors are not in your subfield.
- **Headings that carry meaning.** Part and section headings should state the move, not label a topic.
- **No throat-clearing.** "It is important to note that" and "this Article will argue" can usually be cut.
- **Manage length.** Articles are long, but every Part must earn its space; cut the redundant doctrinal
  recap that the footnotes already support.

## Checklist

- [ ] Introduction states problem → claim → contribution → payoff → roadmap, early
- [ ] The thesis is a declarative sentence on page one or two
- [ ] Argument lives in the text; authority and caveats live in footnotes
- [ ] Terms of art defined once and used consistently
- [ ] Headings state moves, not topics
- [ ] Throat-clearing and redundant recap cut
- [ ] Reads legibly to a generalist outside the subfield

## Anti-patterns

- Burying the thesis after pages of doctrinal warm-up
- Hiding the real argument in footnotes while the text drones descriptively
- Subfield jargon undefined for a generalist editor
- "This Article will show…" signposting that replaces actually showing
- Length without discipline — Parts that repeat what the footnotes already establish

## Output format

```
【Intro】problem → claim → contribution → payoff → roadmap? [Y/N each]
【Thesis placement】page 1-2? [Y/N]
【Text/footnote division】argument in text, support in notes? [Y/N]
【Terms of art】defined once, consistent? [Y/N]
【Cuts】throat-clearing / redundant recap removed? [Y/N]
【Next】hlr-placement-strategy → hlr-submission
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md`](../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md) — before→after HLR-style introduction
- [`../../resources/exemplars/library.md`](../../resources/exemplars/library.md) — real HLR pieces to study for register and structure