BigLaw Lateral Writing Samples: What Partners Actually Want to See

BigLaw Lateral Writing Samples: What Partners Actually Want to See by Ezra Clark, Founder & CEO of Scale Up Counsel​

When you apply for lateral associate roles at Am Law 100, Vault 100, or Am Law 50 firms, your writing sample is often the only thing that shows how you actually think and write on live matters, not just where you work now. Partners use it to answer a simple question: "If I staff this lawyer tomorrow, will their work product be at the level my clients expect?"​

At Scale Up Counsel, a private, referral‑driven network of experienced BigLaw lawyers, our team reviews many associate writing samples each year. The guidance below reflects what those decision‑makers actually look for when screening lateral candidates.​

What is a Legal Writing Sample for BigLaw Laterals?

A legal writing sample is a document that shows your ability to research, analyze, and communicate complex legal issues in writing for sophisticated clients and courts. For lateral associates, it should reflect the level of responsibility you actually carry today: identifying issues, exercising judgment, and producing near‑final work, not just cite‑checking.​

Partners use your writing sample to evaluate:

• Substantive legal analysis and judgment
• Clarity, organization, and persuasiveness
• Command of relevant procedure or regulatory frameworks
• Attention to detail in citations, formatting, and proofreading​

Think of it as a short, real‑world brief to a skeptical panel: they will skim first, then read more closely only if you make it easy to see your value.​

Best Writing Samples for Litigation Associates

Litigation roles almost always require a writing sample, and many partners treat it as the most important part of your lateral application. The best litigation samples show you can frame issues, apply law to a specific record, and advocate strategically in a way that matches the firm's practice.​

Strong litigation writing samples include:

Motion to Dismiss or Motion for Summary Judgment

These are ideal because they show:

• Substantial legal research and analysis
• Ability to identify, prioritize, and argue the key issues
• Persuasive writing under real procedural constraints
• Strategic judgment about case positioning and risk​

Appellate Briefs

Excellent options because they demonstrate:

• Complex legal analysis and synthesis of multiple authorities
• Discipline around standards of review
• Sophisticated, layered argument structure
• Polished, court‑facing advocacy​

Legal Memoranda (Internal or Bench Memos)

Useful where they reveal:

• Research depth and judgment about which authorities matter
• Ability to explain the law clearly to an internal or judicial audience
• Practical recommendations, not just case summaries​

Discovery or Evidentiary Motions

Good alternatives, particularly for procedural‑heavy practices, showing:

• Mastery of rules and local practices
• Ability to narrow technical disputes
• Attention to detail and real‑world, courtroom experience​

What litigators should avoid:

• Internal emails and informal notes: too context‑dependent and not formal advocacy
• Briefs dominated by partner rewrites: difficult to claim as your own work
• Very old student work: law school exercises do not reflect current BigLaw‑level skills
• Samples far from the practice you are targeting (for example, criminal for complex commercial) unless you truly have no alternative​

Best Writing Samples for Transactional and Regulatory Associates

Transactional roles often lean on deal sheets, but more Am Law and elite boutiques now ask for writing samples to see how you explain structure, risk, and tradeoffs to partners and clients. For transactional and regulatory associates, the strongest samples show how you think through deals and frameworks, not just that you can mark up a form.​

Strong transactional writing samples include:

Transactional Memoranda

These work well if they show:

• Understanding of deal structure and key economic and legal terms
• Clear framing of risks and options for the client or partner
• Practical recommendations and business‑savvy judgment​

Due Diligence Reports and Issue Spot Memos

Strong choices when they demonstrate:

• Ability to separate noise from real issues
• Concise explanation of risks and potential mitigants
• Familiarity with how issues affect valuation, timelines, or covenants​

Contract Provisions with Explanatory Memos

Effective when paired:

• Shows your drafting in context (e.g., indemnities, covenants, conditions)
• Explains why provisions are structured as they are and how they support client goals
• Reflects negotiation strategy and risk allocation​

Regulatory Analysis Memos

Particularly valuable in securities, privacy, banking, and other regime‑heavy practices:

• Demonstrate mastery of a regulatory framework
• Apply rules to concrete facts and business models
• Offer forward‑looking, actionable guidance to clients​

What transactional lawyers should avoid:

• Unredacted contracts or closing sets containing client names and deal details
• Internal markups that are unreadable without extensive context
• Short marketing pieces or blog posts that lack substantive legal analysis​

How Experienced Lawyers Should Choose a Writing Sample

Experienced laterals should be strategic: partners infer a great deal from what you choose to send. The goal is not to find your longest or most prestigious matter, but the sample that best showcases how you operate at your current level.​

When selecting among options:

• Prioritize recency: ideally within the last 2–3 years, reflecting your current writing and judgment.​
• Choose pieces where you were the primary drafter or had clear ownership of an issue.
• Match the practice and market where possible (for example, commercial litigation in the same jurisdiction or industry).​

Avoid sending:

• Work that obviously required senior‑level or specialist judgment if you were a very junior contributor; partners will question whether it is truly your analysis.​
• Writing where confidentiality constraints would require so much redaction that the remaining analysis is hard to follow.​

Many lateral candidates in the Scale Up Counsel network maintain a "ready" writing sample folder, updated annually, so they can respond quickly when an attractive role surfaces on the platform.​

Formatting and Length: What Partners Will Actually Read

Partners and hiring committees skim first and read second, so your formatting should help them understand your role and analysis in minutes, not hours.​

Length guidelines:

• Litigation: 5–15 pages is usually ideal; long enough to show real analysis, short enough to respect partner time.​
• Transactional and regulatory: 3–10 pages often suffices, especially for memos and advisory work.​
• If the original is longer, excerpt a self‑contained section that includes at least one complete argument or issue and explain the cut in your cover sheet.​

Formatting best practices:

• Use clear headings, sub‑headings, and roadmap paragraphs so a reader can follow your logic by skimming topic sentences.​
• Preserve enough background so your analysis is intelligible, but consider shifting some facts or non‑core issues to the cover sheet to stay within page limits.​
• Convert the final sample to PDF to lock formatting and clear metadata before sending it to firms or recruiters.​

Redaction Best Practices for BigLaw Writing Samples

Confidentiality mistakes are disqualifying. Your redactions must protect client identities and sensitive information while keeping the analysis readable.​

What to redact:

• Client names and identifying details
• Adversary names, case names, docket numbers, and court or agency identifiers where non‑public or easily linkable
• Deal names, transaction codes, specific consideration amounts, and proprietary business information
• Personal information for individuals (including employees and executives)​

How to redact effectively:

• Use consistent, generic placeholders such as "ABC Corporation," "Technology Buyer," or "Plaintiff" instead of black boxes that disrupt the text.​
• Review the document in full after redaction to ensure no stray names, document properties, or tracked changes reveal confidential information.​
• If extensive redaction would strip the document of meaning, select a different matter, public litigation, a pro bono case, or a "practice" sample based on public facts can all be safer options.​

From a process standpoint, many firms and law‑school career offices recommend: (1) obtaining permission from your current or former employer; (2) redacting thoughtfully; and (3) offering to provide the unredacted version in‑person if the matter is public and your employer agrees.​

Writing Sample Cover Sheet for Lateral Associates

A one‑page cover sheet makes partners' lives easier and increases the odds that your sample is read the way you intend. Treat it as brief, factual context, not an additional advocacy piece.​

Your cover sheet should include:

• Name and contact information, matching your résumé header
• Title: "Writing Sample"
• Document type (e.g., "Excerpt from Motion for Summary Judgment," "Client Advisory Memorandum")
• Brief context: matter type, posture, industry, and jurisdiction where relevant
• Your role: "primary drafter," "prepared first draft," or similar, plus whether the document received partner review
• Scope: what has been omitted or condensed to meet page limits
• Redaction note: a short statement that names and other identifying details have been changed and, where applicable, that you have permission to use the document as a sample​

Example (litigation):

"Writing Sample – Excerpt from Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in a commercial breach‑of‑contract dispute in federal court. I served as primary drafter; the brief received partner review. This 10‑page excerpt includes the Statement of Facts and the argument on the first issue only; additional issues and the Table of Authorities have been omitted to comply with the employer's page limit. Client name and identifying details have been replaced with generic placeholders with permission from my former firm."​

Common Mistakes to Avoid in BigLaw Writing Samples

Across Am Law 50 and elite boutiques, the same avoidable mistakes repeatedly cause otherwise strong candidates to be screened out.​

Frequent errors:

• Submitting unedited partner work and misrepresenting your role
• Choosing a sample that does not align with your experience level or the role's practice area
• Poor or incomplete redaction that raises confidentiality concerns
• Using outdated or student‑era writing that no longer reflects your abilities
• Ignoring page limits or sending material so short that it cannot be meaningfully evaluated
• Omitting a cover sheet, forcing partners to guess at context​

Treat your writing sample with the same care you would a dispositive motion or client‑facing advisory. In the Scale Up Counsel network, the lateral candidates who move fastest are almost always the ones who can send a clean, well‑curated writing sample on short notice.​

FAQ: BigLaw Lateral Writing Samples

Q: How long should my BigLaw writing sample be?

A: For litigation, 5–15 pages is typically ideal; for transactional and regulatory work, 3–10 pages usually suffices. Always follow the firm's specific instructions.​

Q: Can I use a law‑school writing sample as a lateral associate?

A: If you are very junior and lack usable firm work, a recent, high‑quality law‑school brief or clinic memo can be acceptable, especially if it demonstrates strong legal analysis. Be prepared to explain why you are not using current‑firm work.​

Q: Should I tailor my writing sample to each firm?

A: If you have multiple strong options, choose the sample closest to the firm's practice mix, industry focus, and jurisdiction. Never sacrifice quality for marginally better subject‑matter fit.​

Q: Where does the recruiter fit into this?

A: Many experienced laterals work with specialized BigLaw recruiters, such as the former BigLaw attorneys in the Scale Up Counsel network, to stress‑test their writing sample choice, redaction, and cover sheet before submitting. A recruiter who knows the partners and practice group can help you decide which sample will resonate most.​

If you are an associate considering a lateral move and want feedback on which sample to use, how to redact it, or how to position it alongside your résumé and deal sheet, you can share your materials confidentially with the Scale Up Counsel team.​