Maureen Cahill and TJ Striepe January 2012

 Using tools from Legal Research & Writing ◦ Issue spotting ◦ Formulating issues for research ◦ Creating a research plan ◦ Identifying and finding resources ◦ Tracking results ◦ Finalizing research

 In practice, context less controlled ◦ Facts change as you research ◦ Questions less specific, more open ended ◦ Your research only portion ◦ Supervisor may not be clear or specific

 The Big Issues : ◦ What legal question is presented ◦ In what format should research and analysis be presented ◦ What are the time and resource limitations

 Ask questions! ◦ Nature of the task  Work product expected ◦ Context for the task  What is representation about and how does your research fit

 Clarify with supervisor  Frame the issue for research  Map potential resources

 Usually, obvious issue  Vague issues ◦ Find me the law on comparative negligence in Georgia… ◦ About 5 years ago … ◦ The law changed recently… ◦ Tell me the legal issues in this contract… ◦ Testing or just bad supervision?  Talk through the issue at the beginning, check back as necessary

 Understand the facts ◦ Read the File ◦ Ask questions  Identify the legal context ◦ If not obvious: what problem needs to be solved or what deal to be structured, what is the relationship between the parties, crime, government action; use secondary sources

 Phrase the legal question for research ◦ Write it down ◦ Be specific  May revise later ◦ Check in with supervisor

 Consider best place to start (not always Wexis!)  Use these questions:  Jurisdiction  Type of primary law  What secondary sources available  Is there a keyword search path  List relevant primary law

 Specialized research resources  Administrative law  Substantive areas ◦ Hornbooks ◦ Loose-leaf services ◦ Multi-volume treatises ◦ Practice guides

 Follow your resource map  Create a chart ◦ Source ◦ Location ◦ Search terms ◦ Results  Research Trail

 Research log -- ◦ Example – Accountant signed covenant not to compete Example  Use whatever works for you ◦ Parties/Jurisdiction ◦ Secondary Sources ◦ Issues ◦ Attempted Searches ◦ Results

 Research  Go back to your written issues/questions ◦ Access and rewrite if necessary ◦ Review the purpose of the assignment  Update  Repeat  Early on: create a rough outline of final product ◦ Questions answered ◦ Gaps in answers or logic

 How do you know when you are done? ◦ Easy cases: authority directly on point, only a few results, and they answer the question, results repetitive ◦ Hard cases: keep finding relevant results, nothing directly answers your question, answer conflict

 When spinning wheels—step back, reassess  Develop awareness of tangents  Touch base with assigning attorney, others involved  Recognize when your task shifts from research to analysis

 Not all legal questions have black and white answers ◦ If the issue were clear.... ◦ Legal research arises when there is no easy answer  New legal question  New factual twist  Untried form for transaction  Question your supervisor has never seen

 Too many relevant authorities (framing/focus) ◦ Your research question ◦ Authorities have difficulty  No direct answer ◦ Start analysis ◦ Break down the issue into further parts ◦ How much of the issue can you answer ◦ Reason from partial authority

 Conflicting authorities ◦ Analysis ◦ Use skills obtained in law school  Resolve conflict in authorities  Identify alternative readings  Choose a reading to advance your position  Research is not a linear process  Consult other colleagues, mentors, professors, law librarians

 Increased responsibility ◦ Ask ◦ Work to clarify, refine issues  Expect false starts ◦ Keep track of where you’ve been ◦ Consult ◦ Reassess  Bring skills in analysis to each step