ResearchBeginner

Case Law Research Assistant

At the start of a research project to frame the issue and plan your searches, and again once you have pulled opinions and need them summarized and applied to your facts.

LitigationCorporate LawEmployment Law

Case law research is the bedrock of every brief, motion, and client opinion, but the first hours are often the slowest: framing the issue, designing the searches, and separating the cases that help from the ones that hurt. The quality of that initial map shapes everything downstream, and starting from a blank database search wastes time better spent on analysis and strategy.

Claude is a capable research partner when you use it the right way. Give it the jurisdiction, the precise legal question, your position, and the controlling facts, and it frames the issue, breaks it into elements, and drafts search strings for your research database. Paste the opinions you pull and it summarizes the facts, holding, and reasoning with quotes, then applies them to your facts. What it should not do is produce a list of cases from memory.

Treat the output as a research plan and an analysis of authority you supplied, not authority you can cite. Claude can hallucinate case names, citations, and holdings, so every case must be pulled, read, and checked with a citator in your research database before it touches a filing. The memo is a drafting aid for the attorney to verify and refine, not legal advice and not a substitute for independent research.

The Prompt

Help me research the legal issue below. Plan the research and analyze any opinions I paste. Do not build a list of cases from memory.

<case>
[OPTIONAL: PASTE THE FULL TEXT OF ANY OPINION YOU HAVE ALREADY PULLED; USE ONE <case> BLOCK PER OPINION]
</case>

Jurisdiction: [FEDERAL / STATE, AND THE SPECIFIC CIRCUIT OR STATE]
Court level that matters most: [e.g., state supreme court, federal circuit]
Legal issue: [THE SPECIFIC LEGAL QUESTION]
Our position: [THE OUTCOME WE WANT TO SUPPORT]
Relevant facts: [KEY FACTS THE AUTHORITY SHOULD MATCH]

Provide:
1. Issue framing: the precise question, its elements, and the doctrinal tests a court is likely to apply
2. Research plan: search queries, terms and connectors, and key concepts to run in my research database, plus the secondary sources to check first
3. For each opinion I pasted: facts, holding, and reasoning, with direct quotes and pin cites taken only from the pasted text; how it helps or hurts our position; and how to distinguish it if it hurts
4. Gaps: the kinds of authority I still need (for example, controlling appellate authority on a specific element) and how to find it
5. Landmark cases only: you may name a case from memory only if it is a landmark you are certain exists, labeled UNVERIFIED, with no pin cites, so that I can pull and read it

Do not describe a trend in the law unless it comes from the opinions I pasted. Quote the exact language you rely on for each point. If something I need is missing or ambiguous, say so instead of assuming. Do not invent facts, citations, or quotations; mark anything you are unsure of [VERIFY]. This is a draft for attorney review.

Example Output

A research plan with issue framing, elements, and search strings, plus quoted summaries of the facts, holding, and reasoning of any opinions you paste, applied to your facts.

Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.

CASE LAW RESEARCH PLAN (DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW)
Issue: Is a 12-month employee non-solicitation covenant with no geographic limit enforceable against our client? Jurisdiction: [STATE] / [CIRCUIT]
Our position: The covenant is unenforceable as applied to our client.

1. ISSUE FRAMING
   Elements a court is likely to examine: (a) a legitimate protectable interest; (b) reasonableness of duration and scope; (c) any statute restricting restrictive covenants in [STATE]; (d) whether employee and customer non-solicits are treated differently.

2. RESEARCH PLAN
   Search strings: "employee non-solicitation" /p enforceab! /s "protectable interest"; "no-hire" /s covenant /s reasonable!
   Check first: a state practice treatise chapter on restrictive covenants and the annotated statute for [STATE].

3. PASTED OPINIONS (fictional examples)
   Marlowe Tech, Inc. v. Pace [CITATION: VERIFY]
     Facts: Departing engineer solicited three former colleagues; the agreement had no geographic scope.
     Holding, quoted from the pasted text: "[QUOTE FROM PASTED OPINION]" [PIN CITE FROM PASTED TEXT]
     Effect: Supports our position.
   Brennan v. Halcyon Labs [CITATION: VERIFY]
     Holding: Upheld a narrowly tailored restriction tied to trade secrets.
     Effect: UNFAVORABLE. Distinguish: our client had no access to trade secrets.

4. GAPS
   No controlling appellate decision pasted on employee (as opposed to customer) non-solicits. Search the state's highest court and intermediate appellate courts first.

CAUTION: The captions above are fictional. Pull, read, and run every authority through a citator before citing it.

Tips

•Do not ask Claude for a list of cases from memory; pull the opinions yourself and paste them in for analysis.
•Run every case through your research database and citator before relying on it.
•Ask Claude to distinguish unfavorable cases rather than ignoring them.
•Treat the output as a draft for attorney review; verify every citation, quotation, date and figure against the source before relying on it.

Frequently Asked Questions

When should I use Claude for case law research?

Use it at the outset of a research project to frame the issue and plan your searches, and again once you have pulled opinions and want them summarized and applied to your facts. Provide the jurisdiction, the precise legal question, your desired outcome, and the controlling facts. It is most valuable for issue-spotting, search design, and analysis of opinions you paste, not for producing a citable list of authorities.

Can I rely on the cases Claude returns without checking them?

No. AI models can fabricate plausible-looking case names, citations, and holdings. That is why this prompt asks Claude to work from opinions you paste and to label anything it names from memory as UNVERIFIED. Every authority must be pulled, read in full, and validated with a citator in your research database before you cite it. Courts have sanctioned lawyers who filed AI-generated citations without verification.

How do I get the most useful research output?

Be specific. Name the exact court or circuit, state the legal question narrowly, identify your position, and list the facts the cases must match. Paste the full text of the opinions you want analyzed rather than citations. Ask Claude to distinguish unfavorable authority rather than ignore it, and to quote the passages it relies on.

Is it ethical to use AI for legal research?

Yes, when supervised. ABA Formal Opinion 512 and the duty of competence (Model Rule 1.1) permit AI use provided the lawyer understands the tool's limits, verifies its output, and protects client confidentiality. The non-delegable obligation is independent verification: you remain responsible for the accuracy of every citation that reaches the court.

Get New Prompts Like This Every Week

Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.