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• Statutory or regulatory text is current and not superseded.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

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.