THE ART AND CRAFT OF STRATEGIC LEGAL RESEARCH ∗

© 2004 The Writing Center at GULC. All Rights Reserved.

You have waited a long time for this day . . . your first day working in a professional law office!
Eager to dive in and begin to practice, you meet with a supervising attorney who gives you your
very first assignment.

But the meeting is nothing like you expected. It lasts fewer than five minutes, during which the
attorney hands you a manila file and provides a quick synopsis of the matter. Surprised, you leave
the office with only the most general impression of what is going on in the case. You are expected
to turn in a completed memorandum in two days—and you are terrified that you have
misunderstood the attorney’s main question.

Confused, you return to your office, and start your research. You do not have much time. And
you are not sure where or how to begin.
* * * * *
Although this uncomfortable situation befalls many law students and new lawyers, it need not
happen to you! This document is designed to help you confidently conduct efficient and accurate
legal research in any setting. Whether you are working in a clinical program, a judge’s chambers,
a non-profit organization, a private firm, or a classroom, these guidelines will help you devise an
effective strategy for researching any legal issue, no matter how unfamiliar.

Is Legal Research Different in a Law Office than it is in Law School?

Substantively, no. Regardless of the setting, your research always should be thorough and
accurate. However, there are several practical differences between the academic and professional
environments that might affect how we approach our legal research:
• Time: You have more time to complete your assignments in school than you will in most
professional settings.
• Resources: Online legal research is quite costly—once you leave Georgetown, Lexis and
Westlaw no longer will be free. Because of this, some employers prefer that you use the books
to conduct most of your research, and then use an online service to update your law.

∗
By Sharon Nokes and Tanya Stern
• Second Chances: In law school—as in any academic setting—your professors encourage you
to learn through trial and error. You experienced this in your first-year Legal Research &
Writing class by accomplishing “draft” and “final” versions of your interoffice memorandum
and appellate court brief. In the “real world,” however, it saves time and money to get your
research right the first time.
These real-world differences are significant. While it always is wise to have a thoughtful research
strategy in place before you begin to research, it is especially critical to take this first step in the
professional setting, to ensure accurate and timely results. The following pages provide a step-by-
step guide to effective workplace (and scholarly) legal research.

Research Strategy Step 1: Confirm the Topic and Scope of Your Assignment
Your research process begins during the initial meeting with your assigning attorney, who
is one of your most valuable research sources. Although she may not know the substantive law
associated with your assignment, your assigning attorney likely has thought a great deal about the
case, and probably has considered potential arguments and issues that you can explore. With this
in mind, there are several techniques you can use to maximize this important resource:
 Listen carefully to the attorney as she describes your client’s situation. What are the key facts
of this case? What is the jurisdiction? What legal issues is she asking you to research? In
other words . . . what is the question presented?
 Ask thoughtful questions to refine both the legal issue and the scope of the assignment. When
the assigning attorney identifies the issues to research, consider repeating those issue
statements back to her to ensure that you understand them. Most important—do not be afraid
to ask your assigning attorney to clarify confusing facts and/or issues. Do not be shy!
Sometimes, these meetings function not only as “assigning” sessions, but also as
“brainstorming” sessions. Your questions might help the assigning attorney to formulate the
legal problem more precisely; this, in turn, will make your research much more focused.
 Take careful notes during the discussion. You will use these notes extensively during your
pre-research phase, will consult them periodically during your research and writing process—
and may even revisit them weeks or months later in conjunction with follow-up assignments.

Practice Tip#1
Before leaving the meeting, glance at your notes and confirm that, at minimum, you understand
the key facts of your case;
the jurisdiction;
the type of issue you will research;
the scope of your assignment;
the format and length of the final product; and
the due date.

2
Research Strategy Step Two: Pre-research
After receiving the assignment, your first instinct might be to log on to Westlaw or Lexis
and immediately begin to research. Resist the temptation—this probably is not the best use of
your valuable time! Because you (and your employer) want your research and writing to be both
time-efficient and cost-efficient, consider taking some time to strategize before you dive in.
Thoughtful pre-research is essential to effective and accurate legal research and writing. The
following pre-research strategy provides one way to ensure that your research will be efficient and
that your final product will be on-point:
 Create a written summary of your assignment. This summary should include the key facts
and issues that you have been asked to research. It also may include open questions or ancillary
issues that you need to answer or explore during your research phase.
 Share your summary with the assigning attorney and ask whether you have properly
understood the assignment. Do not be alarmed if she corrects or changes your summary; it is
very possible that your perspective has inspired her to generate further questions and issues to
research. If the assigning attorney is not available, consider sharing your summary with a
colleague, who also might think of some different angles to explore.
 Craft a research plan. Once you confident that you understand the scope of your assignment,
it is extremely helpful to spend time crafting a thoughtful research plan. A research plan is
more than a quick list of search terms—it also is a “plan of attack” that will guide where to
begin and end your legal research. Taking time to create a well-thought-out research plan will
pay dividends later on for several reasons:
- First, research plans help you to isolate legally significant facts—the critical facts upon
which your case likely will turn. By thinking about those details before you research, you
will be better equipped to craft a precise list of research terms—and will save yourself a
great deal of time in the long run.
- Second, research plans help you to preliminarily organize your legal argument. In most
cases there are substantive or jurisdictional threshold questions, whose answers will impact
the direction and content of your entire assignment. Researching and answering those
questions first could provide a framework for conducting the rest of your research. For
example, if your client’s standing to bring suit is unclear, you may use frame your research
and subsequent legal analysis around this critical threshold issue.
- Third, research plans help you to explore your issue from different perspectives. By
viewing your problem from different angles, you will be well-equipped to structure a
logical research process. For example:
o You may be more comfortable tackling your research from the “outside-in,”
working from an overarching question down to the details. Some writers prefer
tackling regulatory or policy questions this way, examining legislative intent and
statutory language first, and then analyzing whether a precise regulation or factual
situation at issue comports with Congress’ mandate.

3
o Other times, working from the “inside-out” might be more intuitive. Some writers
feel more comfortable analyzing common-law problems this way, building case
upon case to create a cohesive legal argument.
By using your instincts to structure your research plan, you will feel more at-home with
your research.
- Finally, a well-structured research plan likely will provide the analytical framework for
your final, written work product. By thinking strategically from the beginning, you will be
able to organize and draft your assignment more quickly.

Practice Tip #2
Research plans are wonderful research and writing tools, which vary from person to person. Here
are a few ideas you can combine or use individually to help craft your own research plan:
Idea A: Write what you believe to be the answer to the assigning attorney’s question. Follow
your instincts, use your commonsense and what you have learned from other assignments and in
law school—and be as detailed as possible. You also might consider noting your opponent’s
potential arguments, to ensure that you are aware of both sides of the issue throughout your
research. Extract the key terms from your answer and use them to generate more search terms for
your research.
Idea B: Create a chart that includes the following columns: who, what, where, when, why and
how. Fill in the chart with as many details from your case as possible. Take note of any areas
where you think you need more information or clarification from the assigning attorney and ask
those questions as appropriate. These details will eventually become some of your search terms.
Idea C: Break the issue down into several questions and write them down, incorporating the facts
of your case into each one. This will give you a number of smaller issues to focus on when you
research. For example, if you have a statutory question, some of your questions might be, “What
elements must we establish to prevail in court?” or “Can we collect damages?” After writing out
the question, arrange the questions in the order that seems most logical to you, and attack those
questions, one by one, during your research.

Research Strategy Step Three: Research, Research, Research

With your research plan in hand, it’s time to start researching. But where is the best place
to begin—primary sources or secondary sources? 1 This depends on two things: your personal
learning style, and your level of comfort with the topic and scope of your assignment. Ask yourself
the following questions to guide your initial choice of sources:

1
For more detailed information on when and how to use primary sources, see generally Jessica Robinson & Tanya
Stern, WHEN AND HOW TO USE SECONDARY SOURCES AND PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY TO RESEARCH AND WRITE LEGAL
DOCUMENTS (2004), [Link]

4
 How do I learn? Some writers are very detail-oriented, and prefer synthesizing a legal
argument from discrete points of law, which they extract from specific statutes, cases or
regulations. For these writers, primary sources provide the level of detail they seek.
Other writers are more comfortable conceptualizing the big picture before learning the details,
and prefer to begin their research by learning how their issue fits into the larger legal landscape.
For these writers, secondary sources provide much-needed context.
Consider your personal learning preferences and begin your research using the source that feels
most comfortable. Again, your instincts are probably good ones.
 Am I comfortable with the legal issue? Sometimes you will have a focused understanding of
your legal issue and jurisdiction, and will be comfortable beginning your research using
primary sources, such as constitutions, statutes, cases, rules, and regulations.
Other times, you will be completely unfamiliar with the area of the law surrounding your
assignment. Many legal writers who find themselves in strange territory are more comfortable
beginning their research using secondary sources. Law offices often house a collection of
these books, which are easy (and free) to use. Often your choice of secondary sources will
depend on your degree of familiarity with and/or the obscurity of the topic
- You might consult a legal encyclopedia like American Jurisprudence, 2d (Am. Jur.) or
Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), if you need a very general summary of your topic.
Although you will not cite encyclopedias in your document, they may provide citations to
cases and other useful materials that address your issue.
- You might consult a treatise if you are looking for either a summary of your issue, or a
sense of how your narrow issue fits into a larger area of law. Practitioners often consult
treatises, particularly if there is a seminal compilation on a particular subject. For example,
when beginning their research, attorneys often consult texts like Moore’s Federal Practice,
Corbin on Contracts, Lafave & Israel’s Criminal Procedure, etc. Treatises provide
explanations of the law, and may also provide citations to relevant cases, statutes,
regulations and other sources.
- You might consult American Law Reports (A.L.R.) if you seek in-depth treatment of a
narrow aspect of your legal issue. A.L.R.s often address developing or controversial areas
of the law, and do not discuss every topic. However, if your topic is addressed in an A.L.R.
annotation, this source can be a real time-saver, providing a useful overview and analysis
of the current state of the law, and citing relevant primary sources.
- If you are researching an administrative law issue, you might consult the relevant agency’s
Internet site, to learn about the agency’s purpose, policies, and dispute resolution
processes.
- Finally, remember that people are valuable secondary sources too! Colleagues and
reference librarians can provide a wealth of accessible, inexpensive and on-point
information. Why reinvent the wheel? If someone in your office has already done relevant
work, try to incorporate his or her knowledge when conducting your research.

5
Practice Tip #3
After a while, you may find that your initial choice of primary versus secondary sources varies
with each assignment. This is perfectly normal—whereas your preferred approach to learning
probably will not change much, your level of comfort with the law will vary from assignment to
assignment, thus dictating your initial choice of research material.
For example, a detail-oriented learner who is completely unfamiliar with tax law and terminology
might look to the CCH U.S. Master Tax Guide before pouring over U.S. Tax court cases.
Similarly, a big-picture learner who is quite familiar with communications law might skip reading
Hamburg’s telecommunications treatise and turn to the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Follow
your instincts and begin with source that is best suited to your research situation.

Research Strategy Step Four: Research your Research

Regardless of whether you begin your research using secondary or primary sources, remember that
legal research—like legal writing—is a recursive process, which contains an element of “trial and
error.” Because of this, your initial research sometimes will not yield many useful primary sources.
If this happens, use these “dead ends” to refine your list of search terms.
Often, however, your search will lead to a source that squares with your case, either directly or
analogically. When this happens, take time to note the search terms that generated that source and
make a list.
 Use those terms in conjunction with the digest system (either online or using the books) to
locate relevant case law in your jurisdiction that both helps and harms your case.
 KeyCite or Shepardize the most helpful cases you find to locate similar precedent.
 Repeat this process with any useful sources you find.
Eventually, your research will repeatedly direct you to the same universe of cases, statutes,
regulations and rules. When this happens, it probably is time to stop searching for sources. This
does not, however, mean that you are done researching. Before you finish, be sure to use Lexis or
Westlaw to update all the law you intend to discuss in your assignment. Make sure that your law
is not only current, but also valid. You do not want to mislead your assigning attorney—or your
client—by including overturned decisions in your final work product!

6
Practice Tip #4
Often, it is difficult to know when to stop researching. Remember, however, that it is neither
necessary nor helpful to overload your assignment with citations to cases that are only marginally
relevant. Because you took time to think about your assignment, to understand your legal
framework, and to craft search terms to fit your problem, you are well-positioned to find the most
relevant cases, statutes, and/or regulations.
Use these sources as the foundation for your legal argument. If you notice gaps in your logic, you
can conduct more research to fill them in—but you likely already have enough material to create
your well-written and thoughtful work product.

Research Strategy Step Five: Organize Your Research

Once you have located—and read—your sources, you might be tempted to start writing
immediately. Again, resist this temptation! Your writing will be far more efficient and precise if
you organize your research before diving in. Just as crafting a thoughtful research plan is essential
to successful legal research and strong legal writing, designing a system for organizing your
research will enhance the quality of your final product. Every writer has a preferred method of
organizing her research; here are a few examples to help you craft your own.
 Method A: For some writers, charts provide an excellent vehicle for organizing case law.
Think about your assignment and the product you have been asked to write, and craft your
chart in a way that logically explores your analytical points. For example, if you are conducting
preliminary research for a memorandum or brief, your chart might look like this:

Citation/ Holding Reasoning Critical How Case Helps How This Case
Summary Language my Client Helps my Opponent

Ferguson v. Program = 4th Program “The threat of In contrast to ∆ likely will argue
Charleston, 532 Amend. created and law Ferguson, the that the immediate
U.S. 67 (2001). violation. executed in enforcemnt Act’s immediate purpose of DNA
conjunction w/ may goal not law statute/database is
[Link]. invalidated Rejected
the police to ultimately enf.—it’s to fill quintessential law
a drug argument that
discover and have been a CODIS database enforcement. The
interdiction this was a
produce means to an w/ samples from nexus b/w
program in “special
evidence of end, but the qualifying fed. mandatory DNA
which state needs”
identifiable direct and offenders, pro- fingerprinting and
hospital, in search,
criminal primary moting ultimate law enforcement is
cooperation w/ serving a
wrongdoing purpose of the goals of solving almost as close as
police, need beyond
from citizens policy was to past /future crim. the drug testing
performed ordinary law
with ordinary ensure the use investigations, program in
nonconsensual enforcement
expectations of those exonerating the Ferguson. Thus,
urinalysis on
of privacy. means. In our innocent, & de- forcing felons to
pregnant women
opinion, this terring donate DNA as
to obtain “Immediate
distinction is recidivism. condition of
evidence of need”
critical.” Id. at probation is an
criminal drug connected to Emphasize that
83-85 unreasonable search
use. law DNA alone not
(emphasis in violation of the 4th
enforcement indicate donor
added). Amendment
committed crime.

7
 Method B: Some writers prefer using outlines to integrate their research and analysis. After
surveying the research, consider creating a rough outline of your document’s key points. As
you review your research, insert the law or facts under the appropriate headings.
In the following example, the writer integrates her case research and her own thoughts into her
primary analytical points. By using her outline to organize and pre-write her argument section,
she will save herself quite a bit of writing time:

Appellate Brief Research Outline

Theme: Requiring a felon to provide a DNA fingerprint as a condition of supervised release does not
constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. [Note: emphasize “fingerprint” analogy b/c
fingerprinting is a “search” sanctioned by the [Link]. / CAs]

I. Issue 1: Collecting DNA fingerprints pursuant to DNA indexing statute falls squarely w/in Fourth
Amendment’s “special needs” exception.
A. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 (1987). “[A] search unsupported by PC may be reasonable when
special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause
requirement impracticable.”
1. Note: underlined language is key. Must show CODIS serves SN distinct from run-of-the-mill law enf.
2. Note: ∆ will argue that collecting DNA to solve crimes is law enforcement!
B. Valid SN Search: Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 451-55 (1990) – sobriety
checkpoints to keep drunken drivers off the road fell within special needs exception.
C. Valid SN Search: Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 619 (1989). SN exception
applies to substance abuse testing for RR e’ees who violate certain safety regulations.
D. Invalid: Ferguson v. Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001). Drug interdiction program in which state hospital,
in cooperation w/ police, performed nonconsensual urinalysis on pregnant women to obtain evidence of
criminal drug use. “Immediate” and “ultimate” purposes fleshed out. Not SN search b/c both the
immediate and ultimate purposes of the program = criminal law enforcement.
E. Invalid: Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2001). Hwy. checkpoint prgm. whose primary purpose was
to discover illegal narcotics.
F. Key point: primary purpose of both valid programs not directly related to law enforcement. OK that
“ultimate” purpose related to law enforcement. Argue that DNA Act similar to these programs b/c
immediate purpose is to fill database w/ DNA samples—not to nail criminals.
II. Issue 2: Conditioning a felon’s parole on submission of a DNA sample not unreasonable.
A. Requiring DNA sample barely impacts probationer’s diminished physical/personal privacy interests.
1. Submitting a blood sample is a negligible physical invasion.
a. Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 762 (1985). “Blood tests do not constitute an unduly extensive
imposition on an individual’s personal privacy and bodily integrity.”
b. Skinner, 489 U.S. at 625, 634 – upheld program requiring mandatory blood testing of RR e’ees
employees in the interest of public safety. Good case—blood test/special need synthesis
2. As a convicted felon on probation, M’s expectation of privacy less than other citizens’.
a. Probationers like M have diminished expectation of privacy and enjoy “only conditional liberty . .
. dependent on observance of special restrictions.” Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972).
b. See also Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. at 868, 873-74 (“Probation, like incarceration, is ‘a form
of criminal sanction imposed by a court upon an offender after verdict, finding, or plea of guilty’ .
. . . Inherent in the very nature of probation is that probationers do not enjoy the absolute liberty to
which every citizen is entitled.”)
c. United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 121 (2001). Reaffirmed notion that “state’s interest in
apprehending violators of the criminal law, thereby protecting potential victims of criminal
enterprise, may justifiably focus on probationers in a way that it does not on the ordinary citizen.”
3. Because CODIS, like fingerprint records, logs i.d. markers, M’s privacy interest not unduly burdened

8
[Link]. from DNA extraction nearly identical to that derived from fingerprinting – “i.d. marker
unique to the individual fr. whom info. is derived.” Rise v. Oregon, 59 F.3d 1556, 1559 (1995).
b. Concede that gathering such information from ordinary citizens violates the Fourth Amendment.
Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 724 (1969). But note that everyday “booking” procedures require
accused persons to provide fingerprint identification, regardless of whether the underlying crime
generated fingerprint evidence. Smith v. United States, 324 F.2d 879, 882 (D.C. Cir. 1963) (“it is
elementary that a person in lawful custody may be required to submit to . . . fingerprinting . . . as
part of the routine identification process.”).
c. No additional finding of individualized suspicion is required before a suspect is fingerprinted.
Naplolitano v. United States, 340 F.2d 313, 314 (1st Cir. 1965).
d. Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir. 1992). Upheld storing fingerprints in database “not
only to solv[e] the [instant] crime . . . but also [to maintain] a permanent record to solve other past
and future crimes.”
B. Gov’t has urgent interest in using DNA information to exonerate suspects and solve future crimes.
Important! de-emphasize punitive consequences of DNA Act and emphasize “just” results.
a. DNA Backlog Elimination Act: Hearing on H.R. 3087 Before the House Judiciary Comm., 106th
Cong. 9 (2000) (statement of Rep. Blagojevich, Member, House Judiciary Comm.). “Much of the
potential benefit of the DNA analysis is stymied by the backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases
awaiting analysis . . . FBI data reveals that [in cases] where there are known suspects, about 25
percent are actually exonerated [by DNA information].”

Practice Tip #5
Regardless of your strategy, organizing your research not only will help you understand the
law and its application to your case—it also will help you spot holes in your analysis and
refine your plan for organizing your final document. This, in turn, will make your writing
process quite enjoyable—and will help you to efficiently and effectively create accurate and
powerful legal documents.
Good Luck!