Case Study
Writing Effective Briefings and Submissions for a Legal Division of a Government Department, Aug-Oct 2026
A pre-workshop consultation, a full-day workshop and a follow-up session helped a legal division’s writers lead with the decision, cut what didn’t need to be there and write to one shared standard.
100% of respondents rated the session ‘Excellent’ and the trainer ‘Outstanding’. Four weeks on, delegates reported leading with the decision, writing in plainer language and continuing to use the planning tools from the day.
A legal division’s managers were writing submissions that were too long, and the wrong shape with buried decisions and too much unnecessary detail for senior readers. Teamshaper helped the organisation to diagnose the issues and devise training with the right solutions for a professional, experienced team that recognised their expertise and their learning styles.
Four weeks later, delegates reported leading with the decision, writing more clearly and using the planning tools they learnt on the day. Senior managers reported receiving better-structured, well thought-through briefs.
The Challenge
Senior leaders were receiving submissions that made them work too hard for the decision
The division’s legal managers write the submissions and briefings that reach the department’s senior leadership and, often, external stakeholders. Getting the emphasis right carries real reputational weight. Readers are time-poor yet must stay fully on top of their brief; anything that doesn’t need to be there costs time or draws attention from what matters.
Leadership wanted a single standard the whole team could write to, built around three goals:
▪ Frontload the decision within the first couple of lines.
▪ Hold a firm length standard of two to three pages.
▪ Agree a shared definition of risk.
They set one simple test for every drafter: if you can’t say it in two sentences, you haven’t thought about it hard enough.
The Preparation
We diagnosed the root cause before designing a single exercise
A leadership consultation set the brief. A confidential survey of the full cohort of legal managers and specialist caseworkers then tested each goal directly. It showed a capable team. Self-ratings for clarity, effectiveness and confidence averaged 3.1–3.3 out of 5, with no top marks, so the task was to build on a solid base rather than fix basic skills.
| Leadership goal | What the survey found | Root cause |
|---|---|---|
| Decision in the first two lines | Many said there were no real guidelines; each manager wanted it done differently, learned "through trial and error". Submissions were sent back for missing detail. | Unclear standard made over-inclusion the safe choice. |
| Two-to-three-page limit | Most already wrote two to three pages, yet the most common feedback was 'too detailed' and too dense for a reader outside the case. | Length was on target; the content inside it was the problem. |
| A shared definition of risk | Most defined risk as reputational and financial, but each had reached that view separately. | Instinct, not a common reference point. |
The insight: writers were rationally avoiding the bigger risk as they experienced it. Being sent back for missing something felt worse than writing too much. The programme therefore had to give them a shared, defensible standard, not just better technique.
What We Did
A full-day workshop built entirely on the division’s own casework.
The programme was led by Teamshaper’s Associate Trainer Sue Calthorpe, our written communication specialist. The day used real submissions the team had written and the feedback they’d received. Three exercises targeted the diagnosed problems directly:
Six-box planning grid - putting the decision and recommendation first, before anything else is written
Compression drill - cutting a full-length submission to under 100 words in ten minutes
Live drafting - working against a real high-risk case log
A virtual follow-up session four weeks later reviewed progress and reinforced the techniques from the day.
The Outcome
Four weeks on, delegates were applying the new standard in their daily work
Immediate reaction
Every respondent rated the day ‘Excellent’ and the trainer ‘Outstanding’, and all rated it relevant or highly relevant to their role.
“Being able to embed the learning with work and not just reading from PowerPoints.”
Sustained behaviour change
They lead with the decision. The most consistent change reported. One delegate now puts essential information first in everyday emails too.
They write more plainly. One delegate produced a 230-word summary of a major case. A colleague who hadn’t attended wrote far longer on the same brief, work that “looked like a dissertation” by comparison.
They kept using the tools. One team used the six-box grid to structure a live discussion on a complex case, defining the issue, main risks and next steps.
“One of the best training courses I have ever attended. I will highly recommend it to others.”
“Lawyers learn to draft in a legal style, but this kind of writing is something completely different.”
“I’ve changed my writing to ensure I put my recommendation first, and that’s worked really well.”
Why It Worked
Diagnosis before design. The survey revealed the real barrier: an unclear standard, not weak writing.
Real work, not generic examples. Exercises used the team’s own cases, so skills transferred straight back to the desk.
Reinforcement built in. The four-week follow-up turned a good day into lasting habits.