Investigative Pitch-to-Lawyer Pack
Five templates for taking an investigation into legal review - a pre-publication review request, an evidence schedule, a right-of-reply letter, a meanings-and-defences worksheet, and a risk-summary cover note - so your lawyer or editor gets what they need to make a fast, safe decision.
Last reviewed: Next review due:
Who this pack is for
This pack is for reporters and editors preparing to take a risky investigation through legal review. A good legal read depends far more on how well the reporter has organised the story than on the lawyer’s brilliance under time pressure: if the allegations, meanings, evidence, and right-of-reply correspondence are laid out clearly, the lawyer can give sharp, quick advice. If they are not, the read is slow, expensive, and less safe.
The templates are grounded in the defences under the Defamation Act 2013 - truth, honest opinion, publication on a matter of public interest, and privilege - and in standard right-of-reply practice. They will not tell you whether your story is safe to publish; only a qualified media lawyer can do that. What they do is force you to answer the questions a lawyer will ask, in the order they will ask them, before you walk into the room.
What’s in this pack
Five templates - copy, adapt, and complete before the legal read.
Template 1: Pre-Publication Legal-Review Request
A one-page brief that gives your lawyer or editor everything they need: the story, who is criticised, each allegation, its meaning, the evidence, and the likely defence.
Template 2: Evidence Log / Schedule
A numbered schedule of every item of evidence, what it proves, how strong it is, and where it is stored - cross-referenced from the review request.
Template 3: Right-of-Reply Letter to the Subject
A letter putting each specific allegation to the subject and giving a reasonable, documented opportunity to respond before publication.
Template 4: Meanings-and-Defences Worksheet
A block-per-allegation worksheet that pins down the meaning a reader would take and maps each meaning to how it would be defended.
Template 5: Risk-Summary Cover Note
A short cover note ranking the top legal risks and stating the specific go/no-go decisions only the lawyer or editor can make.
Template 1: Pre-Publication Legal-Review Request
A one-page brief that gives your lawyer or editor everything they need: the story, who is criticised, each allegation, its meaning, the evidence, and the likely defence.
PRE-PUBLICATION LEGAL-REVIEW REQUEST To: [LAWYER / EDITOR] From: [REPORTER] Date: [DATE] Working headline: [HEADLINE] Intended publication date: [DATE] Draft attached: [FILENAME / LINK] Word count: [N] 1. STORY IN ONE PARAGRAPH [Plain summary of what the story says and why it matters in the public interest.] 2. WHO IS CRITICISED [List every identifiable individual and organisation the story reflects on and, in one line each, the criticism made of them.] 3. THE ALLEGATIONS For each allegation, state: - The allegation in plain words: [ALLEGATION] - The imputation a reader would take (the "meaning"): [MEANING] - Presented as fact, or as opinion/comment? [FACT / OPINION] - Evidence relied on (cross-refer to the evidence schedule item number): [ITEM #] - Likely defence: [truth (s.2) / honest opinion (s.3) / public interest (s.4) / privilege / other] 4. RIGHT OF REPLY [Who it was put to, what was put, the deadline given, and their response - attach correspondence. Flag any allegation NOT yet put to the subject.] 5. SENSITIVITIES [Privacy, confidentiality, contempt, court reporting restrictions, data protection, vulnerable people, embargoes.] 6. WHAT I NEED FROM YOU [e.g. sign-off on meanings and defences; wording changes; advice on one specific paragraph; a go/no-go on timing.]
Template 2: Evidence Log / Schedule
A numbered schedule of every item of evidence, what it proves, how strong it is, and where it is stored - cross-referenced from the review request.
EVIDENCE LOG / SCHEDULE Story: [SLUG] Reporter: [NAME] Last updated: [DATE] One row per item of evidence. Number the items so the legal-review request and the meanings worksheet can cross-refer to them. Item # | What it is (document / recording / email / witness account / dataset) | Source and date obtained | What it proves | Strength (primary / corroborating / single-source / unverified) | Where it is stored | On the record? (yes / no / background) | Risks (identifies source / how obtained / disputed) Standard-of-proof note: for each key allegation, ask "could I prove this on the balance of probabilities with admissible material?" If the honest answer is no, mark the allegation AMBER and flag it in the review request. Source-protection note: do not name confidential sources in this schedule. Use a code, and keep the key separately and securely.
Template 3: Right-of-Reply Letter to the Subject
A letter putting each specific allegation to the subject and giving a reasonable, documented opportunity to respond before publication.
RIGHT-OF-REPLY LETTER TO THE SUBJECT [On publication letterhead or email signature] Date: [DATE] To: [NAME / their representative] From: [REPORTER, PUBLICATION] Dear [NAME], I am a journalist at [PUBLICATION] preparing an article that concerns you, and I want to give you a fair opportunity to respond before publication. The article will report the following: 1. [ALLEGATION 1, stated specifically and factually.] 2. [ALLEGATION 2.] 3. [ALLEGATION 3.] I would be grateful for your response to each of these points. If any of the above is inaccurate, please tell me, with any supporting information you are able to share. Please reply by [DATE AND TIME], which I hope is a reasonable opportunity given the nature of the allegations. If I do not hear from you by then, we may proceed to publish and record that we approached you for comment and you did not respond. You are welcome to provide a statement for publication. Please make clear if any part of your response is not for publication, and I will discuss that with you. You can reach me at [EMAIL] and [PHONE]. Yours sincerely, [REPORTER] [PUBLICATION]
Template 4: Meanings-and-Defences Worksheet
A block-per-allegation worksheet that pins down the meaning a reader would take and maps each meaning to how it would be defended.
MEANINGS-AND-DEFENCES WORKSHEET Complete one block per allegation. This forces you to pin down what each passage actually means and how it would be defended. ALLEGATION: [reference the paragraph or line] 1. Natural and ordinary meaning: [What would the ordinary, reasonable reader understand this to say about the person or company?] 2. Any innuendo meaning: [A more serious meaning available to readers with particular knowledge?] 3. Identifiable and defamatory: [Of whom, and would they be identifiable even if unnamed?] 4. Serious harm: [Is it capable of causing serious harm to reputation - for a body trading for profit, serious financial loss? Defamation Act 2013, s.1.] 5. Primary defence and how it is made out: [ ] Truth (s.2) - which evidence items prove the imputation? [ITEM #s] [ ] Honest opinion (s.3) - is it recognisable as opinion, is the basis indicated, could an honest person hold it on the facts? [ ] Publication on a matter of public interest (s.4) - what is the public interest, and was publishing reasonably believed to be in it? [ ] Privilege (s.7 / Schedule 1) - is the material a fair and accurate report of privileged proceedings? 6. Weakest point: [The single thing most likely to defeat the defence, and what would strengthen it.]
Template 5: Risk-Summary Cover Note
A short cover note ranking the top legal risks and stating the specific go/no-go decisions only the lawyer or editor can make.
RISK-SUMMARY COVER NOTE (FOR THE LAWYER / EDITOR) Story: [SLUG] Reporter: [NAME] Date: [DATE] Overall risk rating (my assessment): [GREEN / AMBER / RED] Top three legal risks, highest first: 1. [Risk] - affected party: [NAME] - likely meaning: [MEANING] - main defence: [DEFENCE] - residual concern: [ONE LINE]. 2. [Risk] - ... 3. [Risk] - ... Right of reply: [Complete / partial / outstanding - list anything not yet put to a subject.] Evidence: [Strongest item; weakest link; anything single-sourced or unverified.] Non-defamation issues: [privacy / contempt / data protection / confidentiality / harassment / copyright.] Time pressure: [Is there a hard deadline or embargo, and why?] My recommendation: [Publish as drafted / publish with the changes below / hold pending X.] Specific decisions I need: [List the go/no-go calls only the lawyer or editor can make.] Attached: draft, evidence schedule, meanings worksheet, right-of-reply correspondence.
Primary sources
- Defamation Act 2013 - serious harm (s.1) and the defences of truth (s.2), honest opinion (s.3), public interest (s.4), and privilege (s.7)
- Contempt of Court Act 1981 - the strict-liability rule and reporting restrictions that a pre-publication read must also check
- IPSO Editors' Code of Practice - Clause 1 (Accuracy) and the fairness expectations behind right of reply
- NUJ Code of Conduct - accuracy, fairness, and the duty to protect confidential sources