【www.myl5520.com--实用内容】
法律备忘录
篇一:法律备忘录范文
一、法律备忘录的一般结构
（一）、法律备忘录的内容
法律备忘录一般包括引言、法律规定及法律分析、结论三个部分。
引言：在法律备忘录的开头，通常有“I refer to your email dated??”或者类似的表述，这就是引言。引言的作用在于：一是记录备忘录撰写的时间，以便事后对旧备忘录的价值作出判断(如果时间久远，对目前实践的指导意义就很小了)；二是限定工作范围，减少法律风险。在发生纠纷的情况下，客户会指责律师没有考虑到一些相关的问题，这个时候律师就可以根据曾经出具的法律备忘录的工作范围和其中记载的客户提供的资料，解释为何没有提到某些问题，做到有据可查。
法律规定及法律分析：不能简单罗列法规，也不能只停留于法律规定本身，要进行法律分析。
结论：在这一部分要告诉客户，他能做什么，不能做什么；不能做的事情，通过哪些途径可以做到。 如果遇到结论不明确的问题，如法律的规定和我们的实际经验是不一样的，尽管做了咨询，但各地咨询得到的结果不一样。这种情况下可以向客户提出建议，告诉客户怎样做是比较可行的，或告诉客户我们的经验，或建议客户与相关政府部门进行面对面的咨询。总之，我们工作的重点在于首先发现问题，其次给客户提出建议。
(二)法律备忘录的格式
备忘录要讲究格式，格式整齐，没有太多错别字是最基本的要求，即使内容很好，很有逻辑性，但如果格式不好，也不具有可读性。在格式上，空格、缩进和行间距都有要求。比如说标题的序号，这些虽然没有定规，应该按照一定顺序。在阿拉伯数字1下面，要用(1)，再下面不应再出现(1)，这样会使客户对同时出现的(1)产生疑问，搞不清楚它们之间的关系。行间距和段间距有一个固定的数值，可以按照个人习惯调。页眉应该说明备忘录的内容和日期。
(三)法律备忘录的内在逻辑性
法律备忘录一定要有内在逻辑性，不能对事实进行堆积，而要对客户提供的基本事实和问题进行整理，然后进行法律分析，最后得出结论。不要拿到问题就开始回答，而是应该先把问题搞清楚。
(四)法律备忘录对材料的组织
给客户的备忘录，一般会体现三方面的内容：法律如何规定；咨询的结果如何；自己对该问题的分析。这三方面材料的组织可能存在不同的问题：首先，法条是硬性规定，但是国内立法比较粗糙，很多规定之间存在矛盾之处，我们需要向客户指出国内法条如何。其次，咨询结果可以作为参考，但是不可信，不同的人回答可能不同。咨询内容包括程序性的咨询，这比较可信，同时有政府公开信息佐证，还有一类是对法条本身的理解和认识，咨询不能作为完全参考。另外，写备忘录时，应该有自己的理解和分析，分析根据法律在正常情况下应如何处理，现在政府官员的回答与上述分析是否相符，具有多大的参考价值。否则如果仅写了法条规定和咨询结果，而没有自
己的分析，如果客户照办而出现了一些问题，最后很难解释。这是对自己保护的方法。
作为律师必须有自己的分析和判断，比如，一个客户要分析两个企业合并和股权变更各自要经过什么程序，然后选择快的一个程序。在接到问题时，应该问清楚客户的目的如何，合并的结果是只剩下一家企业，而股权转让的结果是两家并存，不能盲目地去做研究。如果客户希望最后只剩下一家企业，那只能通过合并或其他方法。作为中低年级律师，收到高年级或合伙人的指示进行研究，也要考虑到这个问题，及时提问。因为客户未必很清楚问题，或者客户自己提出的重点错误，这种情况下有必要提示他注意。
二、法律备忘录撰写方法：
（一）、整理事实／背景情况
在写备忘录之前，应当先把事实的部分理出来，然后再把理出来的事实做一个总结。这样做的目的有两个：第一是便于自己理解，从眼前来说，这样做使问题清晰，便于回答；另外，我们可能今后把备忘录拿出来作参考，自己也可能记不清楚事情是怎么样的，而做一个总结便于查阅。第二是为了给客户看，在客户对事实的理解非常混乱的情况下，如果他对你的解释无法理解，他也无法向内部解释。在这里，我们应对事实进行梳理，说明客户和对方之间是什么样的关系，有哪几种产品(型号)，中间
签了哪些协议，后来又签署了哪些新的协议，现在希望如何处理等。
事实被梳理出来后，如果有时间的话，最好让客户去确认。然后，客观陈述法律事实，客观描述相关法律背景情况。具体细节为：(1)注明来源／出处(谁说的)、时间、地点、事情、主体性质／特征(国有／民营、内资／外资、上市、金融、房地产、钢铁等)；(2)对客户描述的法律事实和背景情况要完整、全面、不遗漏细节。
（二）、找出法律问题熟悉事实的细节(是并购还是新设，是境内发行还是境外发行，若并购，法律允许的并购方式有哪些，是资产并购还是股权并购，涉及的税等方面的问题)，把事实弄清楚后，应当把问题整理出来。注意不要漏问题，把握好哪些是相关的问题，哪些是无关的问题。把这些问题理出来以后，最好再让客户确认。然后，回答客户所问的问题。
客户来问法律问题，一般分为几种情形，一种是客户思路比较清晰，逻辑性比较好，事实和问题已经被整理好了，这样比较简单，逐个回答问题就可以了。一种是客户没有向我们披露背景情况，只是简单地提出问题，如下面的实例推演中，客户作出了一个很简单的指示，即要求阐述电信运营商在两个方面的义务：第一，客户的信息保存义务；第二，依据中国法，客户被政府要求提供信息的义务。在这种情况下就要谨慎，因为我们不清楚他要把回答用于什么情况，所以回答的时候要保守谨慎，应仅回答法律如何规定。
还有一种是客户没有把问题想清楚，可能罗列了大量的事实或者问了大量的问题，而这些问题有重复而且没有逻辑性。例如，我们曾经收到一个客户长达6页纸的邮件，客户是一个婴儿车的制造商，他在邮件中描述了其和零件供应商同时与其产品的经销商之间合作及产生纠纷的过程，其中涉及他们之间签订的合作协议(Master Term
Sheet Agreement)及和解协议(Settlement and Release Agreement)，还涉及合作过程中产生的专利问题，等等。这封邮件的行文顺序不好，没有逻辑，当时我们两个合伙人加四个律师讨论了两次，才能大概理出来他想要问的是什么。这种情况下，就需要对客户的问题进行梳理，一定要写明背景情况，就是依据客户提供的信息整理出来的问题是怎么样的，所有的意见都是基于我们认识到的情况提供的，这也是一种自我保护的方法。
（三）、研究法律、分析问题、提出解决方案
法律备忘录顾名思义是研究法律、分析问题、最终提出解决方案。在研究法律、分析问题、最终提出解决方案的过程中，律师需要做到以下几点：
在明确法律问题的基础上，律师需要对问题具有敏感性，知道可能指向的相关法律，明确具体适用哪些法律、法律的生效时间及其适用范围例如，针对外商投资企业，就有专门的法律，而丰简单适用《公司法》。
认真对待法律、行政法规、部门规章、地方法规之间的矛盾、不一致之处。这种矛盾、不一致是我国有特色的问题。产生的原因在于中国立法技术上的不足和政府部门之间权利和利益的博弈。许多法律法规规定得笼统、不清楚。对此，律师首先应当认真阅读法律条文，发现其中的矛盾和不一致。若同级规定之间矛盾，比如商务部和发改委对审批问题有不同的规定，在给客户进行法律分析时，要向客户明确指出实践中的做法和可能存在的风险。
就法律法规规定较为原则、模糊或不明之处咨询有权机关，并咨询具体操作程序和细节。在我国，不同部门的官员，甚至是同一部门的官员，对于同一个问题往往也会有不同的解释。这种情况下，律师应当将矛盾的答复呈现给客户，并建议由我们安排客户跟主管部门的主管官员会见，就相关问题进行面对面的沟通和交流。此外，在法律备忘录中，律师应特别提示咨询结果的局限性。
研究并了解相关法律的具体执行及实施情况以及司法实践，提示风险。比如法律要求对商用密码产品进行登记，但实践中限于人力，并不是所有地区都能够实施法律的规定，因此存在没有登记的情况。这种情况下要告知客户未登记不符合法定要求，以及没有做登记的法律后果。
关注法律法规的发展动向及其可能的影响。我国的法律变化比较快，因此律师应当在法律备忘录中对法律法规的发展动向进行介绍。介绍的内容具体包括：是否有新的规则在起草，新的规则有何变化，可能在什么时候颁布等。但为了限制法律风险，必须强调“正在起草中的、法规毕竟尚未颁布，仅仅是动向，因此最终颁布的法规可能与我们介绍的发展动向不完全一致”。
研究并了解经典案例。在并购、上市、重组等方面，如果有相近的案例，对客户的帮助是比较大的。但是，这些案例中的法律风险，我们还是需要提示客户的。如钢铁产业政策规定，外资在钢铁产业不能控股。客户问是否可以拥有同等股比或可否拥有实际控制权?因为曾有这样的案例。然而根据我们的了解，在该项目中外国投资者有
强大的中资背景，因此要告诉客户这种案例不适用于一般的外资进入钢铁产业的情况。
独立分析判断，不受他人左右／影响。这里说的“他人”，主要是指客户。客户往往有做成项目的冲动。不管是新上任的业务主管，还是其他的高管，为了政绩等因素，可能会对律师以新的项目利诱或以解除委托威协。作为律师，在这些时候需要清醒地认识到，威胁利诱发生的时刻往往是比较有法律风险的时候。因此，律师一定要在合法的前提下帮助客户实现商业目的。有的时候，投行、会计师也会把难以决断的问题推给律师，这个时候律师一定要守住底线。
不提违法和没有法律根据的建议，法律依据不充分，没有规定或规定不明确的，明确揭示其法律风险。
（四）、其他一些细节提示
(1)认真记录问题和要求，不清楚的问题，要和相关人士进行求证；
(2)注意相关性，相关事实，触及相关法律问题，适用相关法律，得出相关结论，一定不要写不相关的东西；
(3)注意身份和角度，是客户的专业顾问，不是简单地说合法或非法，最好能提出合法的解决方案；
(4)用词专业、规范、文字表达简明、准确(加强英文方面的培训，多读好的备忘录)；
(5)谨慎、勤勉，从格式到内容都要令人满意，切忌错别字、啰唆，注意拼写检查；
备忘录_memo_法律备忘录模板
篇二:法律备忘录范文
Jeff Wood, Esq.
Debevoise & Plimpton (Hong Kong)
Chinese Court’s Jurisdiction Over AT &T
Background a Chinese court would have Jurisdiction over
AT&T in the following transaction: * AT&T plans to invest in a Chinese-foreign joint venture company (the “Joint Venture Company”) through Pudong LLC, an offshore special purpose vehicle to be established and wholly owned by it. * Once established, Pudong LLC will enter into a joint venture agreement (the “Joint Venture Agreement”) with two Chinese parties to form the Joint Venture Company. At the
request of the Chinese parties, AT&T intends to provide a guarantee in the form of a
comfort letter (the “Letter”) to ensure the performance by Pudong LLC of its obligations under the Joint Venture Agreement. The Letter (a copy of which having been provided to us) expressly provides that it is governed by New York law and subject to the jurisdiction of New York or Federal courts in the United States. The letter is proposed to be signed by AT&T and countersigned by the Chinese parties to the Joint Venture Agreement.
Question
The question is whether AT&T will be subject to the jurisdiction of a Chinese court by executing the Letter in the manner as described above.
Short Answer* If a dispute arises from the interpretation or performance of the Joint Venture Agreement and, in the absence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement among the parties, a claim is made against Pudong LLC before a Chinese court
having jurisdiction over the claim, it is likely that AT&T will be named as an indispensable party and the Chinese court may decide that, since the Letter is part and parcel of the Joint Venture Agreement, the court should have jurisdiction over AT&T.
Analysis*
Under Chinese law, contracts or agreements such as the Joint Venture Agreement which will be filed with the relevant Chinese governmental authorities for the establishment of companies such as the Joint Venture Company must be governed by Chinese law. As a parallel, China’s Civil Procedural Law provides that, in the absence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement among the parties, the Chinese court will have jurisdiction over any dispute that may arise from the interpretation and performance of a contract such as the Joint Venture Agreement. Article 246 of the Civil Procedure Law states: “Actions concerning disputes arising from the performance of contracts for Chinese-foreign equity joint ventures, or Chinese-foreign cooperative exploration and development of the natural resources in the PRC shall fall under the jurisdiction of PRC courts.”
Since AT&T, by virtue of the Letter, provides a guarantee for the performance by Pudong LLC of its obligations under the Joint Venture Agreement, it is likely that AT&T will be named as an indispensable party to the dispute. If so, the question is whether the Chinese court will decide that it has jurisdiction over AT&T even though AT&T does not have any presence in China other than providing the guarantee.
Under Article 243 of the Civil Procedure Law, a foreign person may be subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese court if, among other things, (i) it has a representative office in China, or (ii) it is a party to a contract which is the subject matter of the litigation, or (iii) it has assets located in China that can be attached. For example, parties to the Joint Venture Agreement will have to choose Chinese law as the governing law and, in the absence of an arbitration agreement, the Chinese court will have jurisdiction over a dispute arising from the Joint Agreement by virtue by virtue of Article 246 of the Civil Procedure Law and over the parties if any of the conditions set forth under Article 243 of the Civil Procedure Law is met. On the other hand, Chinese law also permits parties to a contract to choose the governing law and the forum of dispute resolution (including foreign courts) if such a choice is not with the mandatory rules under Chinese law that provide otherwise.
Conclusion
Based upon the above analysis, we are of the view that the Letter, as so drafted, in and by itself does not constitute a contract that is mandatorily governed by Chinese law or over which the Chinese court will have jurisdiction in respect of any dispute arising therefrom. Chinese courts should honor the parties’ choice of law and jurisdiction in respect of the Letter.
On the other hand, however, if the Chinese court determines
that a dispute arising from the Letter constitutes a dispute of the Joint Venture
Suggestions*
In view of the above analysis, we would suggest the following: First,法律备忘录范文。
parties to the Joint Venture Agreement agree that any dispute arising therefrom should be submitted to arbitration before a well established international arbitration institution, such as the London Court of International Arbitration or the International Chamber of Commerce Court of Arbitration. By law, Chinese
courts should honor the parties’ choice of arbitration and reject filing of a lawsuit by any of such parties in respect of a dispute arising from the Joint Venture Agreement.法律备忘录范文。
Second, the
language of the Letter should be adjusted so as to法律备忘录范文。
eliminate any suggestion or impression that AT&T is the actual party (in lieu of Pudong LLC) that makes the investment in the Joint Venture Company.
Third, subject to the agreement among the Parties, the Letter should be as explicit as possible that the guarantee by AT&T is a general guarantee, and not a joint and several guarantee. Under Chinese law, in the absence of a joint and several guarantee, a party may not sue the guarantor until and unless it has exhausted its remedies against the primary obligor. This may add some additional protection for AT&T.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call any of the undersigned.
Zhang Yi (86-6841-0088)
Quan Ruixue (86-10-6554-1155)
备忘录 memo 金杜法律备忘录模板
篇三:法律备忘录范文
Jeff Wood, Esq.
Debevoise & Plimpton (Hong Kong)
Chinese Court’s Jurisdiction Over AT &T
Background a Chinese court would have Jurisdiction over
AT&T in the following transaction: * AT&T plans to invest in a Chinese-foreign joint venture company (the “Joint Venture Company”) through Pudong LLC, an offshore special purpose vehicle to be established and wholly owned by it. * Once established, Pudong LLC will enter into a joint venture agreement (the “Joint Venture Agreement”) with two Chinese parties to form the Joint Venture Company. At the
request of the Chinese parties, AT&T intends to provide a guarantee in the form of a
comfort letter (the “Letter”) to ensure the performance by Pudong LLC of its obligations under the Joint Venture Agreement. The Letter (a copy of which having been provided to us) expressly provides that it is governed by New York law and subject to the jurisdiction of New York or Federal courts in the United States. The letter is proposed to be signed by AT&T and countersigned by the Chinese parties to the Joint Venture Agreement.
Question
The question is whether AT&T will be subject to the jurisdiction of a Chinese court by executing the Letter in the manner as described above.
Short Answer* If a dispute arises from the interpretation or performance of the Joint Venture Agreement and, in the absence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement among the parties, a claim is made against Pudong LLC before a Chinese court
having jurisdiction over the claim, it is likely that AT&T will be named as an indispensable party and the Chinese court may decide that, since the Letter is part and parcel of the Joint Venture Agreement, the court should have jurisdiction over AT&T.
Analysis*
Under Chinese law, contracts or agreements such as the Joint Venture Agreement which will be filed with the relevant Chinese governmental authorities for the establishment of companies such as the Joint Venture Company must be governed by Chinese law. As a parallel, China’s Civil Procedural Law provides that, in the absence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement among the parties, the Chinese court will have jurisdiction over any dispute that may arise from the interpretation and performance of a contract such as the Joint Venture Agreement. Article 246 of the Civil Procedure Law states: “Actions concerning disputes arising from the performance of contracts for Chinese-foreign equity joint ventures, or Chinese-foreign cooperative exploration and development of the natural resources in the PRC shall fall under the jurisdiction of PRC courts.”
Since AT&T, by virtue of the Letter, provides a guarantee for the performance by Pudong LLC of its obligations under the Joint Venture Agreement, it is likely that AT&T will be named as an indispensable party to the dispute. If so, the question is whether the Chinese court will decide that it has jurisdiction over AT&T even though AT&T does not have any presence in China other than providing the guarantee.
Under Article 243 of the Civil Procedure Law, a foreign person may be subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese court if, among other things, (i) it has a representative office in China, or (ii) it is a party to a contract which is the subject matter of the litigation, or (iii) it has assets located in China that can be attached. For example, parties to the Joint Venture Agreement will have to choose Chinese law as the governing law and, in the absence of an arbitration agreement, the Chinese court will have jurisdiction over a dispute arising from the Joint Agreement by virtue by virtue of Article 246 of the Civil Procedure Law and over the parties if any of the conditions set forth under Article 243 of the Civil Procedure Law is met. On the other hand, Chinese law also permits parties to a contract to choose the governing law and the forum of dispute resolution (including foreign courts) if such a choice is not with the mandatory rules under Chinese law that provide otherwise.
Conclusion
Based upon the above analysis, we are of the view that the Letter, as so drafted, in and by itself does not constitute a contract that is mandatorily governed by Chinese law or over which the Chinese court will have jurisdiction in respect of any dispute arising therefrom. Chinese courts should honor the parties’ choice of law and jurisdiction in respect of the Letter.
On the other hand, however, if the Chinese court determines
that a dispute arising from the Letter constitutes a dispute of the Joint Venture
Suggestions*
In view of the above analysis, we would suggest the following: First,
parties to the Joint Venture Agreement agree that any dispute arising therefrom should be submitted to arbitration before a well established international arbitration institution, such as the London Court of International Arbitration or the International Chamber of Commerce Court of Arbitration. By law, Chinese
courts should honor the parties’ choice of arbitration and reject filing of a lawsuit by any of such parties in respect of a dispute arising from the Joint Venture Agreement.
Second, the
language of the Letter should be adjusted so as to
eliminate any suggestion or impression that AT&T is the actual party (in lieu of Pudong LLC) that makes the investment in the Joint Venture Company.
Third, subject to the agreement among the Parties, the Letter should be as explicit as possible that the guarantee by AT&T is a general guarantee, and not a joint and several guarantee. Under Chinese law, in the absence of a joint and several guarantee, a party may not sue the guarantor until and unless it has exhausted its remedies against the primary obligor. This may add some additional protection for AT&T.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call any of the undersigned.
Zhang Yi (86-6841-0088)
Quan Ruixue (86-10-6554-1155)
公司之间备忘录范本
篇四:法律备忘录范文
备忘录
甲方：_________ 乙方：__________
甲乙双方于______年______月______日在______(地点)就______(项目名称)合作事宜，经过协商讨论，初步达成如下共识：
一、
___________________________________________________
二、
___________________________________________________
三、
___________________________________________________
……
双方商定，于______年______月______日在______(地点)举行第二次会议，进一步讨论合作内容。
甲方：__________ 乙方：______________
代表(签字) 代表：(签字)
___年__月__日
1、书要点
备忘录是谈判双方共同记载有关谈判内容的书面文件，对双方当事人都有法律约束力。在项目谈判或者合同谈判、履行过程中，为解决某些方面的问题，当事人要进行多次的谈判，为了了解谈判的进程，需要通过书面的形式把双方讨论的问题明确下来，以便于在下一次谈判时参考。有的备忘录还具有可执行的效力，这样的备忘录往往是合同的组成部分或者债权债务的依据。
备忘录的主要内容包括：第一，备忘录形成经过;第二，双方讨论的主要问题;第三，形成共识的问题;第四，存在分歧的问题;第五，各方的责任;第六，双方当事人的签字。
2、别提示
制作备忘录的基本要求是：第一，简明扼要地写明备忘录形成的时间、地点、参加人、讨论的主题等基本情况;第二，对于形成共识的问题要求写明是什么问题、怎么处理此问题、谁对此问题负责、负何种责任等情况;第三，对于分歧问题也要写明双方不同观点及理由。