Run Legal Research and Verify Every Citation

Use Claude to spot issues, structure research, and synthesize the authority you provide, then verify every citation against a primary source before anything reaches a brief.

The Workflow

1. 1

   Frame the research question and map the issues

   Start by giving Claude the precise legal question, the jurisdiction, and the procedural posture. Ask it to break the question into issues and sub-issues and to propose the search terms and queries you should run yourself. You are using Claude as a research planner here, not a source of law.

   PromptCopy

   You are helping me plan legal research. Do not cite any cases or statutes yet.
   
   Legal question: [STATE THE PRECISE QUESTION]
   Jurisdiction: [STATE/FEDERAL COURT AND CONTROLLING LAW]
   Procedural posture: [e.g., opposing a motion to dismiss / drafting an appellate brief]
   Key facts: [3-6 BULLET FACTS]
   
   Do the following:
   1. Restate the core legal question in one sentence.
   2. Break it into the main issues and sub-issues I need to resolve.
   3. For each sub-issue, list the elements or factors at stake.
   4. Suggest specific search terms, boolean queries, and the types of authority (controlling vs. persuasive) I should look for in [JURISDICTION].
   5. Flag any threshold or procedural issues I might be overlooking.
   
   Do not invent or name specific cases or citations. I will pull the authority myself.

   What you get: A structured research plan: the question restated, a breakdown of issues and sub-issues, the elements or factors for each, and a list of search terms and authority types to look for. No case citations yet.

2. 2

   Paste in the authority you pulled and have Claude synthesize the rule

   Now go run the searches and pull the actual sources yourself. Paste the real text of the cases, statutes, or regulations you found into Claude and ask it to analyze only what you provided. This is Claude's strongest role: reading authority you supply and synthesizing the rule.

   PromptCopy

   Below is authority I have pulled and read myself. Analyze ONLY the text I provide. Do not add, supplement, or reference any case, statute, or source that is not pasted below.
   
   --- PASTED AUTHORITY ---
   [PASTE FULL TEXT OR LONG EXCERPTS OF THE CASES / STATUTES / REGULATIONS YOU PULLED]
   --- END ---
   
   Using only the material above:
   1. State the governing rule or standard that emerges from these sources.
   2. For each source, summarize the relevant holding or provision and the proposition it supports.
   3. Note any tensions, splits, or open questions among the sources.
   4. Identify gaps where the pasted authority does not fully answer my question from Step 1.
   
   If the pasted material is insufficient to support a point, say so explicitly rather than filling the gap.

   What you get: A synthesized rule statement drawn strictly from your pasted sources, a per-source summary of holdings and propositions, identified tensions among them, and an honest list of gaps the authority does not cover.

3. 3

   Force every Claude-suggested authority into an UNVERIFIED check-table

   If Claude proposes any case or statute on its own, in this step or any earlier one, treat all of it as unverified. Direct Claude to collect every authority it suggested (not the ones you pasted) into a table that pairs each citation with the exact proposition it supposedly supports, so you have a clean checklist to verify.

   PromptCopy

   List every case, statute, or other authority that YOU suggested or referenced in this conversation that I did NOT paste in myself. Do not add any new ones now.
   
   Put them in a markdown table with these columns:
   | # | Authority (full citation as you stated it) | Proposition it supposedly supports | Source of citation (your own knowledge vs. my pasted text) | Verification status |
   
   Fill the Verification status column with "UNVERIFIED" for every row. Be exhaustive and include partial or uncertain citations. If you cannot recall the exact citation for something you implied, add a row and note that the citation is incomplete.
   
   After the table, add a one-line reminder that none of these may be used until I confirm each against a primary source.

   What you get: A complete check-table of every authority Claude generated on its own, each paired with its claimed proposition and marked UNVERIFIED, ready for you to verify one by one.

4. 4

   Verify each authority against a primary source and discard what you cannot confirm

   Take the check-table off-platform and verify every row yourself against a primary source: the actual published opinion, the official reporter, or the court's own record. Confirm that the case exists, that the citation is accurate, that the holding actually says what the table claims, and that it is still good law. Anything you cannot confirm gets struck. Claude cannot do this step for you and is not a citator.

   PromptCopy

   I have now verified the table against primary sources myself. Here is the result:
   
   CONFIRMED (I read the actual opinion/statute and it supports the stated proposition):
   [PASTE THE CITATIONS YOU CONFIRMED]
   
   DISCARDED (could not confirm the case, the citation, the holding, or its current validity):
   [PASTE WHAT YOU STRUCK]
   
   From now on, treat the CONFIRMED list as the ONLY authority that may appear in any draft. Never reintroduce a discarded item or substitute a new uncited case. If an argument depended on a discarded authority, tell me the argument is now unsupported instead of finding a replacement.

   What you get: Claude acknowledges the confirmed list as the sole usable authority and agrees not to reintroduce discarded or new uncited cases. The verification itself happens in the primary sources, not in Claude.

5. 5

   Assemble the research memo using only verified authority, then review

   Have Claude draft the memo using strictly the confirmed authority. Then do the final human review: read the draft against your verified sources, confirm every citation and quotation matches the opinion you actually read, and check that the analysis is sound. No citation enters a brief until you have personally read the case it rests on.

   PromptCopy

   Draft a research memo answering my Step 1 question using ONLY the CONFIRMED authority. Use this structure:
   
   1. Question Presented
   2. Short Answer
   3. Applicable Law (cite only confirmed authority)
   4. Analysis (apply the confirmed authority to my facts)
   5. Conclusion and open risks
   
   Rules:
   - Every citation must come from the CONFIRMED list. Do not add, infer, or supplement any authority.
   - Where the confirmed authority does not resolve a point, say so plainly and label it an open question.
   - Do not overstate any holding beyond what the confirmed source says.
   - Use neutral citation form and flag any citation where you are unsure of the exact format so I can correct it.

   What you get: A structured memo built solely on verified authority, with gaps flagged as open questions rather than papered over. You still personally read the draft against your sources and confirm every quotation and citation before it goes anywhere near a filing.

Example Output

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

RESEARCH MEMO (DRAFT - VERIFY BEFORE USE)

Question Presented
Whether a commercial tenant's continued occupancy after lease expiration creates a month-to-month tenancy under [State] law where the landlord continued accepting rent.

Short Answer
Probably yes. Under the confirmed authority, a landlord's acceptance of rent after a fixed-term lease expires generally creates a periodic tenancy measured by the rent-payment interval, absent a contrary agreement.

Applicable Law
- Holdover statute [confirmed cite]: a tenant who remains after term expiry with landlord consent holds over as a periodic tenant.
- [Confirmed appellate case]: acceptance of monthly rent after expiration established a month-to-month tenancy where no renewal was signed.

Analysis
Here, the landlord accepted three months of rent after the term ended and sent no notice to quit. That conduct tracks the confirmed appellate holding and supports a month-to-month tenancy. The lease's holdover clause may alter this result; the confirmed authority does not address a clause setting holdover rent at 150 percent, so its effect is an OPEN QUESTION requiring further research.

Conclusion and Open Risks
A month-to-month tenancy likely arose. Open risk: the holdover clause's enforceability and any local notice requirements are not resolved by the confirmed authority and must be researched before relying on this memo.

Tips

• •Make the no-fabrication rule explicit in your prompts. Telling Claude to analyze only the text you pasted, and to say so when authority is insufficient, sharply reduces invented citations, but it does not eliminate the need to verify.
• •Paste real source text whenever you can. Claude is far more reliable summarizing an opinion you give it than recalling one from memory, and pasted text keeps the analysis anchored to authority you have actually read.
• •Keep the UNVERIFIED check-table even when a citation looks obviously real. Hallucinated cites are convincing by design, with plausible parties, reporters, and pin cites, so the discipline of checking every row is the whole point.
• •Re-run verification after any edit. If you ask Claude to revise the memo and a new case name appears, treat it as a fresh UNVERIFIED entry and send it back through the primary-source check.

Prompts used in this workflow

Related Reading

• Claude AI for Legal Research: A Complete Guide
• Can Lawyers Ethically Use AI?
• AI Legal Ethics & the ABA Model Rules