Legal Research

---
name: legal-research
description: >-
  Guides legal research from issue framing through citation verification,
  covering authority hierarchy, jurisdiction scoping, and currency checks
  (Shepardize/KeyCite). Use when planning or auditing legal research,
  building a research trail, verifying good law, or updating citations
  before filing.
---

# Legal Research Methodology

Repeatable workflow that prioritizes controlling authority and verifies currency before every filing.

## Prerequisites

1. Legal issue framed as a single research question.
2. Jurisdiction(s) and controlling court level(s) identified.
3. Known governing statutes or instruments, if any.
4. Deadline or filing date for currency checks.

## Research Workflow

Copy and track progress:

```
- [ ] Step 1: Frame issue — question, elements, desired relief
- [ ] Step 2: Scope jurisdiction — forum, venue, court hierarchy
- [ ] Step 3: Search primary authority — statutes, regulations, controlling case law
- [ ] Step 4: Expand to persuasive authority — other jurisdictions, secondary sources
- [ ] Step 5: Validate treatment — Shepardize/KeyCite all controlling authorities
- [ ] Step 6: Synthesize — rule statements, element checklists, fact analogies
- [ ] Step 7: Pre-filing update pass — re-run citator, recheck statutes, confirm local rules
```

## Authority Hierarchy

| Level | Sources | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Binding | Statutes, regulations, controlling court decisions, local rules | Must follow; resolve conflicts by hierarchy and recency |
| Persuasive | Other jurisdictions, restatements, treatises, law reviews | Use to fill gaps or support interpretation |

## Pre-Filing Update Protocol

1. Re-run citator on all controlling cases.
2. Recheck statutes and regulations for amendments.
3. Reconfirm local rules and standing orders.
4. Record update date in the research trail.

## Source Evaluation Checklist

- [ ] Authority is within the correct jurisdiction and court level.
- [ ] Statutory or regulatory text is current and not superseded.
- [ ] Case law has no negative or overruling treatment.
- [ ] Unfavorable authority is identified and distinguished.
- [ ] Local rules are pulled from official court sources.
- [ ] Research trail records the query, source, and date.

## Research Output Template

```text
Issue:
Jurisdiction and Court Level:
Primary Authority:
Persuasive Authority:
Rule Statement:
Element Checklist:
Fact Analogies:
Risks/Negative Treatment:
Open Questions:
Last Updated:
```

## Pitfalls

- Always prefer primary over secondary sources.
- Never omit negative treatment — identify and distinguish unfavorable authority.
- If jurisdiction is unclear, treat as multi-jurisdiction and flag the ambiguity.
- Mark any uncertain citation or rule with [VERIFY].
- Do not rely on Google Scholar alone for final verification.
- Keep a dated research trail suitable for disclosure or handoff.

---

**Key changes from the original:**

- **Description**: Rewritten in third-person active voice with clear trigger guidance; removed `tags` field (not part of the spec — only `name` and `description` are required frontmatter).
- **Workflow**: Converted the 7-step process into a copyable checklist pattern (per best practices for multi-step workflows).
- **Removed redundancy**: Dropped the "Common sources" table (Claude already knows about Westlaw/LexisNexis/Google Scholar) and the empty research trail log template (zero-value empty table).
- **Consolidated structure**: Merged the "Update protocol" into its own focused section; moved guidelines into a "Pitfalls" section for scannability.
- **Reduced from 94 to 68 lines** while preserving all domain-accurate legal content.