Book research came with a time consuming and backbreaking set of best practices that all but ensured everyone would find the same opinions. Nearly 140 years ago, John West developed the Key Number System. Around the same time, Frank Shepard launched the cryptic Shepard’s Citations. Then came annotated statutes, rules and regulations. Legal encyclopedias like American Jurisprudence and Corpus Juris Secundum popped up. In the absence of these mission critical casefinders, the only way to find the two or three opinions you cared about was to read all the cases in the library.
Today, when you query a database, you are reading all the cases in the library. This blog reveals the secrets to finding exactly what you want (and nothing you don't want) in one or two mouseclicks. It also reveals the opinions West attorney-editors fail to include in the annotations to statutes and the key number index.
Book research included a set of simple search paths that took you to cases. It didn’t matter whether you went to Harvard or night school. You all learned the same two or three paths. If you missed a relevant opinion, the opposition did, too. You all used the same tools, the same way.
It’s not like that anymore. Today, legal research is conducted on the computer and there are no best practices. People use computers differently and badly. Most lawyers I talk to have completely failed to bond with their computer. Many hire people to run the computer for them.
Book researchers knew how to resolve any legal research question to "yes" or "no." It took time and a lot of heavy lifting. But, there was a process. For most compusearchers, each new research project starts at ground zero. In the absence of best practices, success or lack thereof, feels like happenstance.
Today's lawyers and paralegals are pushing buttons and they don’t know why. I can’t tell you how many phone conversations I’ve had where the attorney on the other end exhales, “I’m getting results!”
The question isn’t whether you’re getting results. The question is whether you’re finding everything you need and nothing you don’t, in one or two mouseclicks, while bypassing the headnotes, key numbers and annotations that West uses to lard up your data.
If you’re browsing headnotes, key numbers and annotations you are wasting time. Ask a recent law school graduate. It doesn’t matter what the question is, the answer is Westlaw or Lexis. Nearly ninety percent of the legal research marketplace continues to rely on these two databases. And because most legal researchers are relatively inept on the computer, they sacrifice content and coverage on the altar of little buttons that take them to a series of headnotes that will hopefully lead to some cases that are helpful.
Westlaw has you using a computer to conduct book research. This blog will teach you how to perform advanced legal research using the computer - regardless of the database you subscribe to. You’ll learn how to bypass headnotes, annotations and key numbers to find everything you need in one or two mouse clicks. I'll even teach you how to bypass Keycite, to find every opinion construing your opinion, but only for the reason(s) you specify. Have no fear. "Advanced" doesn't mean difficult. It just means no one's doing it. It's easy once you know how.
Every search you perform is driven by either a codified or uncodified item of information. Codified items of information include statutes, rules, regulations and case citations. Yes. Case citations. Citations are codified items of information. Legal researchers are not trained to think of them as such. But, that is what they are. Non-codified items of information include concepts (words, phrases) and principles of constitutional law.
You perform a citation driven search whenever you use Keycite or Shepards. The citation is your search term. Keycite and Shepards generate crude, mass-customized results that give you a lot of information and very little in the way of knowledge that is individualized to the totality of circumstances surrounding your case or controversy. You beat the citation into the little box and a lot of hits appear. You've been taught to believe that this is the Gold Standard. I’m telling you, that in the 21st century it is not.
Here’s a question. Regardless of the database you use, do you know how to find all the opinions that cite your opinion only for the reason you specify (and none of the opinions that don’t) in one click? What might that query look like?
Regardless of the database you use, do you know how to find every opinion citing your statute, only for the reason(s) you care about, from the court(s) you specify and within a particular time frame? What would that query look like?
If you follow this blog you will learn how to go beyond outmoded, time-wasting, headnotes, annotations, and key numbers. Headnotes were the best we could do in the days of books. The problem with headnotes is that published judicial opinions (with the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court) typically construe three to five points of law. Accordingly, if your death penalty case also treats Rule 404(b), you’re slogging through headnotes that are off point. To avoid reading all of the opinions in the library, this is a price the book researcher happily paid. The computer researcher should be loathe to read even a single headnote that’s off point, to say nothing of a entire judicial opinion.
I have four goals for you. First, I don’t want you even scanning (to say nothing of reading) opinions that are off point. Second, I want you working only with opinions that are on point. Third, I want you to find everything you need and nothing you don’t in just one or two mouse clicks. Finally, I want you to stop asking whether a case is still “good law.”
With your ability to custom tailor a search query to find exactly what you need and nothing you don't, the question is no longer whether your case is "still good law." The question is whether you’ve found and read every opinion that construes the item of information driving your search for the reason you care about. In almost every instance, at most, we’re talking about only a handful of opinions. Most opinions have never been cited. Another enormous slice have been cited only a handful of times.
Checking for Red Flags and going to lunch is malpractice. A Red Flag is information. It is not knowledge. It merely tells you that your opinion is "no longer good law for at least one of the points of law it contains." You still have to check the opinion to see: (a) if the Red Flag is connected to your point of law, (b) whether the Red Flag originates from the one or two courts that actually have the power to overrule your case and (c) whether or how the Red Flagged opinion has since been construed.
Today, when you query a database, you are reading all the cases in the library. This blog reveals the secrets to finding exactly what you want (and nothing you don't want) in one or two mouseclicks. It also reveals the opinions West attorney-editors fail to include in the annotations to statutes and the key number index.
Book research included a set of simple search paths that took you to cases. It didn’t matter whether you went to Harvard or night school. You all learned the same two or three paths. If you missed a relevant opinion, the opposition did, too. You all used the same tools, the same way.
It’s not like that anymore. Today, legal research is conducted on the computer and there are no best practices. People use computers differently and badly. Most lawyers I talk to have completely failed to bond with their computer. Many hire people to run the computer for them.
Book researchers knew how to resolve any legal research question to "yes" or "no." It took time and a lot of heavy lifting. But, there was a process. For most compusearchers, each new research project starts at ground zero. In the absence of best practices, success or lack thereof, feels like happenstance.
Today's lawyers and paralegals are pushing buttons and they don’t know why. I can’t tell you how many phone conversations I’ve had where the attorney on the other end exhales, “I’m getting results!”
The question isn’t whether you’re getting results. The question is whether you’re finding everything you need and nothing you don’t, in one or two mouseclicks, while bypassing the headnotes, key numbers and annotations that West uses to lard up your data.
If you’re browsing headnotes, key numbers and annotations you are wasting time. Ask a recent law school graduate. It doesn’t matter what the question is, the answer is Westlaw or Lexis. Nearly ninety percent of the legal research marketplace continues to rely on these two databases. And because most legal researchers are relatively inept on the computer, they sacrifice content and coverage on the altar of little buttons that take them to a series of headnotes that will hopefully lead to some cases that are helpful.
Westlaw has you using a computer to conduct book research. This blog will teach you how to perform advanced legal research using the computer - regardless of the database you subscribe to. You’ll learn how to bypass headnotes, annotations and key numbers to find everything you need in one or two mouse clicks. I'll even teach you how to bypass Keycite, to find every opinion construing your opinion, but only for the reason(s) you specify. Have no fear. "Advanced" doesn't mean difficult. It just means no one's doing it. It's easy once you know how.
Every search you perform is driven by either a codified or uncodified item of information. Codified items of information include statutes, rules, regulations and case citations. Yes. Case citations. Citations are codified items of information. Legal researchers are not trained to think of them as such. But, that is what they are. Non-codified items of information include concepts (words, phrases) and principles of constitutional law.
You perform a citation driven search whenever you use Keycite or Shepards. The citation is your search term. Keycite and Shepards generate crude, mass-customized results that give you a lot of information and very little in the way of knowledge that is individualized to the totality of circumstances surrounding your case or controversy. You beat the citation into the little box and a lot of hits appear. You've been taught to believe that this is the Gold Standard. I’m telling you, that in the 21st century it is not.
Here’s a question. Regardless of the database you use, do you know how to find all the opinions that cite your opinion only for the reason you specify (and none of the opinions that don’t) in one click? What might that query look like?
Regardless of the database you use, do you know how to find every opinion citing your statute, only for the reason(s) you care about, from the court(s) you specify and within a particular time frame? What would that query look like?
If you follow this blog you will learn how to go beyond outmoded, time-wasting, headnotes, annotations, and key numbers. Headnotes were the best we could do in the days of books. The problem with headnotes is that published judicial opinions (with the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court) typically construe three to five points of law. Accordingly, if your death penalty case also treats Rule 404(b), you’re slogging through headnotes that are off point. To avoid reading all of the opinions in the library, this is a price the book researcher happily paid. The computer researcher should be loathe to read even a single headnote that’s off point, to say nothing of a entire judicial opinion.
I have four goals for you. First, I don’t want you even scanning (to say nothing of reading) opinions that are off point. Second, I want you working only with opinions that are on point. Third, I want you to find everything you need and nothing you don’t in just one or two mouse clicks. Finally, I want you to stop asking whether a case is still “good law.”
With your ability to custom tailor a search query to find exactly what you need and nothing you don't, the question is no longer whether your case is "still good law." The question is whether you’ve found and read every opinion that construes the item of information driving your search for the reason you care about. In almost every instance, at most, we’re talking about only a handful of opinions. Most opinions have never been cited. Another enormous slice have been cited only a handful of times.
Checking for Red Flags and going to lunch is malpractice. A Red Flag is information. It is not knowledge. It merely tells you that your opinion is "no longer good law for at least one of the points of law it contains." You still have to check the opinion to see: (a) if the Red Flag is connected to your point of law, (b) whether the Red Flag originates from the one or two courts that actually have the power to overrule your case and (c) whether or how the Red Flagged opinion has since been construed.
The worst part about Red Flags, is the deference researchers pay to the opinion of an unknown human editor who knows nothing about the facts and circumstances surrounding your case. Red Flags are not the end if the inquiry. Not even close.
I want you to be the most efficient researcher possible. I want to save you time and money. I want you to be the smartest, most informed lawyer on the phone conference, in the deposition and in the courtroom. I want you to know all the good news (not just the bad news) about the points of law that drive your search. Most of all, I want you to be confident that no stone has been left unturned, that you’ve found everything, missed nothing and that you’ve done so in just a couple of mouseclicks. Then I want you to be my customer!
I want you to be the most efficient researcher possible. I want to save you time and money. I want you to be the smartest, most informed lawyer on the phone conference, in the deposition and in the courtroom. I want you to know all the good news (not just the bad news) about the points of law that drive your search. Most of all, I want you to be confident that no stone has been left unturned, that you’ve found everything, missed nothing and that you’ve done so in just a couple of mouseclicks. Then I want you to be my customer!
