Although judicial opinions are inherently persuasive texts that seek to rationalise legal decisions and communicate with multiple audiences, the interactional metadiscourse markers through which judges achieve these purposes remain insufficiently examined. Since each element in the structure of judicial opinion text has a distinct communicative function, exploring metadicourse across these structural elements is essential for understanding how judges employ these features throughout the judicial opinions. Therefore, Strong's (2015) and Lu and Yun's (2021) categories of structural elements were adapted to identify the structure of judicial opinions. Besides that, the study followed Hyland’s (2005) metadiscourse model to investigate the performance of the interactional markers within these elements. Twenty judicial opinion texts were randomly selected from two official websites. The analysis involves comparing the utilisation of metadiscourse in two distinct cultures, namely the U.S. and the UK. Moreover, the study intends to determine whether judges follow the legal norms concerning the use of metadiscourse. The findings show that the analysed data includes 4 to 6 structure elements in the opinion texts. A slight difference is found in the order and the occurrence of these elements in both the British and American texts. Moreover, the results show a minimal use of the interactional markers, which are located mostly in the structural element ‘Analysis of the legal issues.’ This study provides insight into how linguistic features are recruited into the organisation of legal texts, targeting both experienced and novice judges. Furthermore, it demonstrates that metadiscourse exhibited distinct variations within this particular genre.