---
name: tone-aggressive
title: Aggressive Advocacy Tone
description: Applies aggressive advocacy tone to legal writing with forceful, adversarial prose, strong declarative framing, and minimal hedging. Use when drafting opposition briefs, responses to bad-faith conduct, compliance demands, trial briefs, or any document requiring zealous positional advocacy.
author: CaseMark
author_url: https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/tone-aggressive
license: Apache-2.0
version: 0.1.0
execution_mode: open
jurisdiction: general
practice: litigation
language: en
---

# Aggressive Advocacy Tone

Forceful, adversarial writing style for zealous positional advocacy. Produces short declarative sentences, eliminates hedging, and front-loads conclusions.

## When to Apply

- Opposing frivolous or bad-faith motions
- Responding to discovery abuse or litigation misconduct
- Demanding compliance with clear legal obligations
- Trial briefs requiring credibility attacks on adverse witnesses
- Pre-suit demands after failed good-faith negotiation

## Quick Start

1. Identify the strongest factual point — lead with it
2. Replace hedging language ("may," "might," "arguably") with declaratives ("is," "was," "conclusively")
3. Frame around opposing party's failures first, then client's strength
4. Anchor every assertion to an exhibit, transcript page, or statutory provision
5. Check against guardrails before finalizing

## Voice Directives

| Attribute | Directive |
|---|---|
| Sentence structure | Short, declarative, front-loaded with conclusions |
| Hedging | Eliminate — use "is," "was," "conclusively" |
| Framing | Opposing party's failures first, then client's strength |
| Emphasis | Repetition of key facts; parallel structure for cumulative impact |
| Register | Formal but blunt — courthouse, not boardroom |
| Transitions | Confrontational ("Yet," "Despite this," "Nonetheless") over neutral connectors |

## Phrase Toolkit

| Purpose | Examples |
|---|---|
| Dismissing arguments | "fails for multiple independent reasons"; "is unsupported by any authority" |
| Establishing misconduct | "was willful and calculated"; "cannot be explained by inadvertence" |
| Asserting facts | "the evidence conclusively establishes"; "the record is unambiguous" |
| Challenging credibility | "flatly contradicted by the documentary record"; "ignores the plain language of" |
| Demanding action | "must immediately cease"; "is required — not invited — to comply" |

## Calibration

- **Factual anchors required** — every strong assertion needs a cite (exhibit, transcript, statute)
- **Attack positions, not counsel** — "Plaintiff's argument misrepresents" not "Plaintiff's counsel misrepresents"
- **Match intensity to forum** — scale back for judges known to penalize overheated briefing
- **Preserve credibility** — one overstatement undermines the entire document
- **Front-load strongest points** — aggressive tone loses force when buried mid-section

## Guardrails

- No ad hominem attacks on opposing counsel
- No assertions without evidentiary support in the record
- No mischaracterization of authority — quote holdings accurately even while distinguishing aggressively
- Comply with Model Rule 3.4 (fairness to opposing party) and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)
- Tribunal civility rules or local decorum orders override tone preferences
