Law is marked on authority and reasoning, not opinion. Your specialist argues from primary sources — statute, ratio, obiter — in the citation system your faculty actually uses, and every pinpoint reference is verified before delivery.
Four failure modes account for most of the marks students drop. Each is a checklist item before your work is released.
A summary of the doctrine earns a pass at best. Marks come from applying it to these facts and reaching a defensible conclusion.
Secondary sources support argument; they do not establish law. We cite the statute and the report, with the pinpoint.
Treating a passing remark as binding is the fastest way to lose an examiner's confidence. Precedential weight is stated explicitly.
A US case in an English contract problem reads as a search-engine answer. Your specialist works in your jurisdiction only.
Formation, terms, misrepresentation, frustration, remedies. Problem questions with the offer-and-acceptance chain argued properly.
Negligence and duty of care, causation, occupiers’ liability, defamation, vicarious liability.
Actus reus and mens rea, homicide, defences, inchoate offences, participation.
Parliamentary sovereignty, rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review grounds.
Registered and unregistered title, easements, covenants, co-ownership, leases and licences.
Express and resulting trusts, certainty, breach of trust, fiduciary duties, tracing.
Directors’ duties, minority protection, corporate personality, insolvency and restructuring.
Agency, security, carriage, retention of title, statutory implied terms.
Capital adequacy, conduct rules, payment systems, market abuse.
Copyright, trade marks, patents, passing off, and the doctrinal arguments between them.
Contracts of employment, unfair and wrongful dismissal, discrimination, TUPE.
Residence and domicile, chargeable gains, avoidance doctrine and statutory interpretation.
Sources, statehood, jurisdiction, use of force, state responsibility.
ECHR and Convention rights, treaty bodies, margin of appreciation, derogation.
WTO dispute settlement, BITs, investor-state arbitration, treaty interpretation.
Rome Statute offences, modes of liability, complementarity, immunities.
Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of judgments.
Supremacy and direct effect, free movement, competition, preliminary references.
Pleadings, disclosure, admissibility, burden and standard of proof.
Charge and bail, pre-trial disclosure, sentencing principles, appeals.
Financial remedies on divorce, child arrangements, welfare principle, domestic abuse.
Empirical and theoretical work, often in Harvard rather than a footnote system.
Positivism, natural law, realism, critical legal studies — argued, not summarised.
Memoranda, skeleton arguments, client letters, contract clauses and pleadings.
Not listed? Send the brief anyway — if we do not have a specialist in that field we will tell you rather than improvise.
Each has its own conventions, and marking rewards knowing them. A problem question is not an essay with facts attached, and a case note is not a summary.
Issue-spotted, structured in IRAC or your faculty's variant, with a conclusion that commits rather than hedges.
A thesis stated in the first paragraph and defended with authority — including the counter-argument the examiner is waiting for.
Facts, procedural history, ratio, obiter, and a critical view of the reasoning's consequences for the doctrine.
Practice format: question presented, brief answer, facts, discussion, conclusion — written for a reader in a hurry.
Chapter by chapter, from research question and methodology through doctrinal or comparative analysis.
Skeleton arguments, bundles and speaking notes, with the authorities you will be asked to defend flagged.
Contract clauses, pleadings and client letters in the register your module expects.
Footnote discipline is where law students bleed marks quietly. Send your faculty’s guide and we work from that; otherwise these are applied as standard.
| System | Where it is used | What we get right | Footnotes |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSCOLA | England, Wales, Northern Ireland | Neutral citations, pinpoint paragraphs, no full stops in abbreviations, subsequent-reference short forms | Footnotes |
| AGLC 4 | Australia | Reported over unreported, pinpoint page and paragraph, italicised case names, correct court identifiers | Footnotes |
| McGill Guide | Canada | Bilingual conventions, neutral citations, jurisdiction and court in the right order | Footnotes |
| Bluebook | United States | Signals, short forms, supra and id. used correctly, reporter hierarchy respected | Footnotes |
| NZLSG | New Zealand | Style-guide abbreviations, correct treatment of unreported judgments | Footnotes |
| Harvard / APA | Socio-legal and criminology modules | Author–date where the module requires it, with a table of cases kept separate | In-text |
A table of cases and a table of legislation, formatted to the same system, plus a bibliography split into primary and secondary sources. Reference lists are cross-checked against footnotes so nothing appears in one and not the other.
The same pipeline every brief runs through, with the checks that only matter for law called out.
A manager checks the module, jurisdiction, citation system and word count before quoting. Ambiguity here costs marks later.
Matched by field and jurisdiction — a contract problem in English law goes to someone who studied it there.
Statute and reports read in full, not from a database summary. The structure follows the rubric before a word of prose is written.
A second law reviewer verifies every pinpoint against the report, checks the tables, and runs the originality scan.
Three law briefs, and what the student said afterwards.
The first thing the specialist did was ask which OSCOLA edition my faculty uses. Nobody had ever asked me that. The footnotes came back cleaner than my own.
My problem answers always read like essays. The IRAC structure they used made the difference obvious — I write differently now because I could see it side by side.
AGLC 4 with a table of authorities, delivered two days early. They caught that one of my own cases had been overruled on appeal.
The draft narrated the facts for a page before reaching an issue. Rebuilt around four issues, each with authority and application.
Sixty-one footnotes, every pinpoint verified against the report, plus separate tables of cases and legislation the module required.
Two jurisdictions, a stated comparative method, and a supervisor's notes answered point by point before submission.
Level, deadline and scope move the figure — an LLM dissertation chapter is not an undergraduate problem question. You get one fixed all-in number before anything is charged, and tables of cases and legislation are never an extra.
Get my fixed quoteEvery pinpoint verified against the report by a second law reviewer.
Cases, legislation and a split bibliography, in your citation system.
Attached to the delivery as standard, never on request.
Unlimited within the original brief, no per-revision fee.
Miss the agreed slot and the refund applies without a debate.
Two people see your brief. Your faculty is never contacted.
General questions about pricing, refunds and confidentiality are answered on the main FAQ page.
All the questionsYes, and both come as standard rather than as an extra. Tables of cases and legislation are formatted to the same system as the footnotes, and the reference list is cross-checked against them so nothing appears in one and not the other. Send your faculty’s guide if it deviates from the standard edition — many do.
Yes. Law briefs go only to specialists with a law degree — LLB, LLM, JD or PhD, some bar-qualified — whose qualification was confirmed with the awarding institution and who passed a timed law problem question marked blind by two law reviewers. You are told their field and jurisdiction before work starts.
Whichever your faculty teaches — tell us on the form, or send a past assignment with feedback and we will match it. If your module has no stated preference, IRAC is the default for problem questions because it makes the application step visible to a marker.
England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, Singapore and the UAE. Authority is drawn from your jurisdiction only — a US case in an English contract problem is a mark-loser, not a bonus.
The citation audit catches it. A second law reviewer checks the current status of every authority as well as the pinpoint, so an overruled or distinguished case is flagged and replaced before delivery rather than found by your marker.
No, and nothing we supply may be relied on as legal advice. This is academic assistance for study and revision, no solicitor–client or attorney–client relationship arises, and you should not use it to make decisions about a real dispute.
Yes — skeleton arguments, authorities bundles and speaking notes, with the weak points in your position flagged so you are not surprised by the bench. We do not appear or speak for you.
Twelve hours is the practical floor for a problem question, and the manager will say so plainly if your brief needs more time than that. Reading reports properly cannot be rushed past a point, and we would rather decline than deliver something a marker will see through.
Tell us the module, the jurisdiction and the deadline. A manager replies in about three minutes with a fixed price and the specialist who will take it.