Research a Legal Question

Produce a legally useful first draft and source assembly that a qualified human can verify efficiently.

The objective is not to replace legal review. It is to make the legal issue, governing authority, research path, and remaining uncertainty transparent enough that verification is fast and reliable.

1. Fix the jurisdiction first

Legal research is jurisdiction-specific.

Establish the governing or potentially governing jurisdiction before substantive research.

When the user names a jurisdiction

Proceed using that jurisdiction.

If the facts suggest another jurisdiction may also apply, flag that issue rather than silently switching or blending legal regimes.

When the user does not name a jurisdiction

Ask for the jurisdiction before researching unless the user explicitly requests a general preliminary overview.

When the user is unsure

Identify plausible jurisdictions and the factors that may determine applicable law, such as:

• location of the parties;
• place of contracting;
• place of performance;
• location of harm;
• governing-law clause;
• place of establishment;
• territorial scope of the relevant statute or regulation.

Research the plausible regimes only as far as useful.

Present the result as preliminary and state that governing law must be confirmed before reliance.

When the facts are too thin

Say explicitly that applicable law cannot be determined from the available facts.

Provide only a heavily caveated general view and recommend identifying the relevant jurisdiction before relying on the answer.

Never merge rules from different jurisdictions into a single undifferentiated legal rule.

2. State the legal question precisely

Convert a broad topic into a researchable legal question.

For example, replace:

• "Research EU data protection"

with a question such as:

• "What lawful bases are available under Article 6 GDPR, and how have EU courts interpreted legitimate interest in large-scale profiling?"

Identify:

• main legal question;
• sub-issues;
• relevant statutory or regulatory framework;
• requested depth;
• expected output;
• practical decision the answer needs to support.

Avoid running broad legal searches when the user actually needs a narrower answer.

3. Protect confidential and privileged matter information

Assume search queries may leave the session.

Do not include unnecessary:

• client names;
• party names;
• deal terms;
• financial figures;
• privileged facts;
• confidential strategy;
• internal matter identifiers

in external search queries.

Use anonymized or hypothetical search formulations.

Example:

• search for limitation of liability SaaS agreement jurisdiction
• not the client's name, counterparty, and negotiated terms.

If the user provides identifiable confidential or privileged material and its handling is unclear, flag the issue before using it in external research.

Do not move confidential matter details into persistent memory, reusable skills, or other durable stores unless the user explicitly requests and authorizes that use.

4. Start with secondary sources, then verify with primary law

Use authoritative secondary sources first to understand:

• doctrine;
• terminology;
• leading cases;
• relevant statutes;
• regulator interpretation;
• common disputes.

Useful secondary sources may include:

• treatises;
• practice guides;
• legal encyclopedias;
• law-firm analysis;
• academic commentary;
• regulator explanatory material.

Then trace the relevant propositions to primary law:

• statutes;
• regulations;
• official rules;
• binding case law;
• official decisions;
• authoritative court or regulator material.

Do not stop at secondary summaries when the primary authority is available.

5. Classify every authority

For each material authority, record:

• jurisdiction;
• source type;
• primary or secondary;
• binding or persuasive;
• current status where relevant.

Do not present persuasive authority as binding.

Do not treat a case from another jurisdiction as controlling merely because it is factually similar.

When authority is non-binding but useful, label it clearly.

6. Research until the answer converges

Legal research rarely has a natural endpoint.

Stop when:

• independent sources point to the same controlling authorities;
• the principal statutory or regulatory provisions have been identified;
• leading cases are located;
• new searches mostly return authorities already reviewed;
• further research would add depth without materially changing the answer.

If authorities genuinely conflict, present the conflict.

Do not resolve uncertainty by selecting the result that best fits the desired conclusion.

7. Verify every material citation

Verification is mandatory.

For each citation:

Existence

Confirm the source exists in:

• an authoritative database;
• official court source;
• regulator source;
• official legislative source;
• original publication.

Proposition

Read the relevant passage and confirm that it supports the proposition attributed to it.

Do not rely solely on a search snippet, headnote, summary, or secondary description.

Pinpoint

Verify:

• article;
• section;
• paragraph;
• clause;
• page;
• paragraph number

as applicable.

Treat page references as unverified until checked.

Structural references such as article or section numbers are more durable but still require confirmation.

Currency

Check whether the authority remains current.

For statutes and regulations, consider:

• amendments;
• repeal;
• replacement;
• transitional provisions.

For case law, consider whether the case has been:

• overruled;
• reversed;
• distinguished;
• limited;
• questioned.

Jurisdiction

Confirm the authority belongs to the jurisdiction claimed.

Remove or explicitly flag anything that cannot be verified.

Never leave an unchecked citation in the answer as though it were confirmed.

8. Separate the legal layers

Keep distinct:

• binding primary law;
• persuasive authority;
• secondary interpretation;
• factual assumptions;
• analytical inference;
• unresolved legal questions.

This distinction should remain visible in both the analysis and the final answer.

9. Return something a lawyer can verify

Lead with the answer.

Then show:

• governing authority;
• legal reasoning;
• relevant binding sources;
• persuasive sources where useful;
• unresolved conflicts;
• assumptions;
• unverified points;
• material research gaps.

Keep each proposition close to the authority supporting it.

State what was searched and what was not.

A named gap is preferable to a falsely complete answer.

10. Route adjacent legal work appropriately

Use the cross-jurisdiction comparison workflow when the same question must be answered across several regimes.

Use the regulation-briefing workflow when the primary task is explaining one law, regulation, enforcement action, or piece of official guidance.

When the user repeatedly researches similar legal questions, preserve reusable elements such as:

• accepted jurisdictions;
• source hierarchy;
• citation conventions;
• verification rules;
• output structure.

Do not preserve matter-specific confidential facts inside a reusable method unless explicitly authorized.