Minto Pyramid: Structuring Legal Analysis with Hierarchical Reasoning

You’ve spent two hours analyzing a contract interpretation question. You have eight different considerations. Three clauses that interact weirdly. Case law that cuts both ways. Commercial considerations. Risk factors.

You know there’s an answer in there somewhere. But when you try to explain your thinking, it comes out as a chronological mess: “Well, first there’s this clause, and then there’s this other clause, but actually there’s also…”

Your reasoning is sound. Your structure is terrible.

Here’s what most lawyers miss: AI isn’t just for generating text. It’s for organizing the thinking you’ve already done.

This isn’t about AI replacing your analysis. It’s about using AI to impose structure on complex reasoning so you can actually see if your logic holds up.

The Concept: Minto Pyramid Principle

Barbara Minto’s framework is simple: lead with your conclusion, then organize supporting logic in hierarchical groups.

The pyramid:

• Top: Your answer
• Second level: 3-4 main reasons why
• Third level: Supporting evidence/reasoning for each reason

Lawyers know this structure exists. We rarely actually use it when working through complex problems. We think linearly, chronologically, or by jumping between considerations as they occur to us.

The Minto structure forces you to:

• Commit to an actual conclusion (not “it depends”)
• Group reasoning logically (not randomly)
• See if your supporting logic actually supports your conclusion
• Find gaps where reasoning is weak

The Prompt

Why This Is Iterative

Here’s what happens when you run this prompt:

You get structure. You also get exposed.

The AI will organize your thinking into a pyramid. And immediately you’ll see:

• “Wait, that supporting point doesn’t actually support that conclusion”
• “These two reasons are basically the same thing, not separate pillars”
• “My conclusion is stronger than my reasoning justifies”
• “I’m missing an obvious counterargument”

That’s not a bug. That’s the entire point.

The first output reveals where your thinking is unclear or incomplete. Then you have a conversation:

Typical follow-up patterns:

“The reasoning under [main point 2] feels weak. What am I missing there?”

“Does [this clause] actually support my conclusion, or does it cut against it?”

“You listed [X] as a weakness. How serious is that? Does it undermine the whole conclusion?”

“I think [these two supporting points] should be grouped differently. Restructure with [X] as the primary grouping.”

This is iterative reasoning. You’re not asking AI to solve the problem. You’re asking it to mirror your logic back so you can see it clearly and strengthen it.

Concrete Example

Scenario: You represent a distributor who wants to start selling products on online marketplaces (Amazon, bol.com). The distribution agreement says “Distributor may sell through retail and wholesale channels” but also requires “Distributor maintains brand standards and customer experience.” The manufacturer says marketplace sales breach the agreement. Your client wants to know: can we do this?

Your initial thinking (the mess):

• “Retail channel” probably includes online retail, marketplaces are just modern retail
• But manufacturer has point about brand control - marketplaces have their own standards
• When contract was signed (2018), were marketplaces contemplated? Industry practice has shifted
• Contract doesn’t explicitly prohibit it, but doesn’t explicitly allow it either
• Risk: manufacturer terminates agreement
• Opportunity: significant revenue upside from marketplace access
• Similar case law on “exclusive territory” but that’s not quite the same issue
• What did parties actually intend? Hard to prove now
• Industry practice: everyone’s on marketplaces, manufacturer is being unreasonable

You dump this into the prompt.

---

AI FIRST RESPONSE:

CONCLUSION: Distributor can likely sell via online marketplaces under the current agreement, but should notify manufacturer and propose marketplace standards to reduce termination risk.

MAIN SUPPORTING REASONS:

1. “Retail and wholesale channels” includes online marketplaces

• Language doesn’t restrict to physical retail
• Marketplaces are retail channels by commercial definition
• 2018 contract was signed when marketplaces already existed
• Industry evolution: what counted as “retail” in 2018 vs. 2025

2. Contract doesn’t explicitly prohibit marketplace sales

• No exclusion of specific channels
• No requirement for manufacturer approval of sales channels
• Silence on method suggests distributor discretion

3. Brand standards obligation can be met on marketplaces

• Distributor controls product listings, descriptions, pricing
• Can maintain brand guidelines within marketplace structure
• Manufacturer’s concern is manageable, not absolute barrier

WEAKNESSES/COUNTERARGUMENTS:

• “Brand standards and customer experience” clause gives manufacturer leverage to argue marketplace environment undermines brand control
• If manufacturer can show material brand damage, they have stronger termination case
• Commercial expectations in 2018: were marketplaces truly contemplated as distribution method?

---

You read this and immediately see a problem:

The conclusion says “likely can” but the weaknesses section shows significant termination risk. Those don’t align.

YOU ASK A FOLLOW-UP:

“The brand standards weakness - is that actually a weakness in my legal reasoning, or just a commercial risk? Would that undermine my position that the contract permits marketplace sales?”

---

AI REFINES:

Good distinction. Let me separate legal position from business risk:

LEGAL POSITION: The contract permits marketplace sales

• “Retail channels” language is broad
• No explicit prohibition
• Distributor discretion on sales methods

This position is defensible. The contract language supports it.

BUSINESS RISK: Manufacturer might terminate despite weak legal grounds

• They’d argue “brand standards” breach
• Even if you’d win that dispute, relationship is damaged
• Litigation/arbitration costs vs. marketplace revenue

THE GAP IN YOUR REASONING: You’re conflating “are we legally permitted?” with “should we do this?”

Your legal analysis supports marketplace sales. But your conclusion should reflect the business reality: you can do this, but should negotiate rather than just proceed.

REVISED CONCLUSION: Distributor has contractual right to sell via marketplaces, but should propose marketplace standards to manufacturer before proceeding to preserve relationship and reduce termination risk.

---

Now you see it clearly:

Your legal analysis is sound. The contract permits it. But jumping straight to “we can do this” ignores the practical reality that manufacturer will fight it. The better path is: use your strong legal position as leverage to negotiate agreed marketplace standards.

You wouldn’t have reached that conclusion from your initial mess of thoughts. The Minto structure forced you to separate legal analysis from business strategy, which revealed the real answer.

When to Use This

Deploy Minto structuring when:

• Complex contract interpretation - Multiple provisions interact
• Multi-factor legal tests - You need to organize elements clearly
• Strategy decisions with legal+business considerations - Separate the analysis types
• Before writing any formal opinion - Structure your thinking before drafting
• When your reasoning feels circular - The pyramid exposes logical gaps
• In team discussions - Share the structured version, iterate together

The earlier you do this, the better. Structure your reasoning while you’re still figuring it out, not after you’ve committed to a position.

Why This Works

You already know how to analyze complex problems. But human working memory can only hold 5-7 things at once. When you’re juggling 8+ considerations, your brain organizes them poorly.

AI can hold all the variables simultaneously and impose structure without losing any threads. That’s not intelligence—it’s working memory assistance.

This isn’t about AI replacing legal judgment. It’s about using AI to organize your judgment so you can actually see if it’s sound.

The best legal reasoning is hierarchical, not linear. This prompt forces you to think that way.

---

We’re building Mino for lawyers who want AI as a reasoning partner, not just a drafting tool. If you want specialist agents designed for exactly this kind of thinking, join the founding members list.

I need you to organize my legal analysis using the Minto Pyramid Principle.

Here's the situation and my current thinking:

[DUMP EVERYTHING - the legal question, the relevant contract language or legal provisions, your analysis so far, competing considerations, facts that matter, what you're uncertain about]

Structure this as a Minto pyramid:

**CONCLUSION (Top of pyramid):**
What's the answer to the question? Be specific. If there are qualifications, state them clearly but don't hedge.

**MAIN SUPPORTING REASONS (Second level):**
What are the 3-4 primary reasons that support this conclusion? Each should be independently sufficient or collectively necessary.

**DETAILED REASONING (Third level):**
For each main reason, what's the specific evidence, legal principles, factual findings, or logical steps that support it?

**WEAKNESSES/COUNTERARGUMENTS:**
Where is this reasoning vulnerable? What's the strongest counterargument? What facts or law would change the conclusion?

Be honest about gaps in the logic. I need to see where my reasoning is actually weak.