Verify citation of legal authorities contained in AI-generated motion briefs, legal memoranda, case briefs, scholarly articles, blog posts, and other legal writing to confirm that each cited source exists, is accurately cited, supports the proposition for which it is offered, contains any quoted language attributed to it, and has not been materially mischaracterized or adversely treated. The service provides attorneys with a human verification review before AI-assisted legal work is relied upon, submitted to a court, or delivered to a client.Example:A client uses a generative-AI tool to draft a motion for summary judgment in a federal employment-discrimination case and asks the researcher to conduct a comprehensive human verification of every citation before it is filed. The researcher checks each cited case and statute to confirm that the authority exists, is correctly cited, contains any quoted language attributed to it, actually supports the stated proposition, and has no material negative treatment, then identifies any citation that must be corrected, replaced, or removed. The researcher formally documents the findings of each check, provides an official digital copy of the verified authorities, notifies the client of any discrepancies, and provides a redline of the recommended edits and updates to the motion brief.

Efficiently locate and retrieve an official digital copy of a single case, ordinance, statute, regulation, constitution, or journal article, specified by the client.Example: A client asks the researcher to obtain an official digital copy of 29 C.F.R. § 825.115, the federal regulation defining certain “serious health conditions” under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The researcher locates the regulation in the official Electronic Code of Federal Regulations and delivers the digital copy to the client.

Find the requested holding, rule, quote, general legal principle, term, or concept described by the client, in the prescribed jurisdiction(s).Example: A client asks for “the Virginia Supreme Court case from the last several years holding that a noncompete agreement was unenforceable because its geographic restriction was too broad,” but does not know the case name or citation. The researcher conducts a search for the case based on the description, confirms that it matches the client’s request, and provides an official digital copy of the opinion.

Find all of the codified laws that govern the conduct, legal concepts, or terms described by the client, in the prescribed jurisdiction(s).Example: A client requests that researcher identify all currently effective New York state regulations governing when a residential landlord may withhold, itemize, and return a tenant’s security deposit. The researcher searches the NYCRR, identifies the relevant provisions, verifies currentness, and provides digital copies for the client.Methodical limits research requests to only a single type of law (eg, municipal ordinances, county ordinances, state statutes, or state regulations).

Find the controlling judicial opinions, and the related codified law, if applicable, that interprets and resolves the specified legal issue described by the client, using the prescribed key facts and jurisdictions.Example: A client litigating in DuPage County, Illinois (Second Appellate District) asks whether a trial court may dismiss a complaint based on a particular statute-of-limitations issue.The complaint alleges that the defendant concealed the actionable conduct, the plaintiff did not discover the alleged injury until several years later, and the defendant has moved to dismiss on the ground that the claim was filed outside the applicable two-year limitations period; the plaintiff contends that the discovery rule or fraudulent concealment delayed accrual or tolled the limitations period.The researcher identifies any applicable state statutes and controlling Illinois Supreme Court decisions interpreting them, and then determines whether the Second District has addressed the issue. The researcher also checks the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Districts for relevant decisions and conflicts, because Illinois circuit courts generally follow appellate authority statewide when there is no conflict, but when districts conflict, the circuit court follows the appellate district in which it sits.

Find the cases representing materially conflicting holdings regarding the specified legal issue and argument described by the client. Then, also find the cases resolving the legal issue most likely to be raised by an opposing party, using the same key facts and jurisdiction.Example: A client representing an employer asks for opposition research regarding a former employee’s disclosure of confidential customer information, arguing that it constitutes a breach of a contractual confidentiality provision. Researcher identifies cases where the court held that a purported disclosure of confidential information did not constitute a breach of contract.Researcher also notes that client's position allows employer to rely on contractual protections without having to prove that the information qualifies as a trade secret.Researcher then researches whether or not, if opposing counsel, representing the former employee, reframes the same conduct as a trade-secret claim governed exclusively by the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, and contractual remedies are not preserved when they concern trade secrets, therefore requiring the employer to satisfy the more demanding statutory elements for protected trade-secret information.

Find the advisory opinions issued by governmental authorities, ethics bodies, agencies, or other authorized institutions that address the legal issue, conduct, legal concept, or terms described by the client.Example:A client representing an insurance company is defending a FLSA overtime misclassification lawsuit and plans to argue that its general-liability claims adjusters qualify for the administrative exemption because they investigate claims, evaluate liability and damages, negotiate settlements, and make litigation recommendations. The researcher identifies and provides official digital copies of U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) WHD Opinion Letter FLSA2002-11 (Nov. 19, 2002) addressing claims adjusters who investigate and evaluate claims and make settlement/litigation recommendations; and FLSA2005-25 (Aug. 26, 2005) addressing Claims Specialist I, Claims Specialist II, and Senior Claims Specialist positions handling general-liability claims.

Find the cases addressing the most significant sub-issues within the legal issue described by the client, and/or find the cases containing the most in-depth analysis, including landmark, seminal, or leading cases addressing the legal issue, to educate a client who may be unfamiliar with the issue.Example:A client representing a home buyer, unfamiliar with the economic-loss doctrine in construction disputes, asks for informative research on the issue of whether a homeowner may pursue negligence claims for defective construction, rather than being limited to contract remedies. The researcher identifies Sensenbrenner v. Rust, Orling & Neale Architects, Inc., the seminal case, which addresses whether the claimed loss consists only of disappointed economic expectations—such as repair costs or diminished value—which generally confines the homeowner to contract remedies; Richmond Metropolitan Authority v. McDevitt Street Bovis, Inc., a leading source-of-duty case, which addresses whether the defendant breached a duty that exists independently of the contract, because a duty arising only from the contract generally supports a contract claim rather than negligence; and Tingler v. Graystone Homes, Inc., a leading modern application case, which addresses whether negligent construction caused damage to property other than the contracted-for home, because damage to other property may support a negligence claim even when losses to the home itself remain contractual.

Determine whether the legal issue described by the client has been decided in the prescribed jurisdiction(s), and identify the most relevant and analogous primary authorities from other areas of law, secondary sources, and persuasive authorities from other jurisdictions, when no on-point and precedential controlling authority exists.Example:A client representing a commercial landlord asksfor research on the novel issue of whether Wi-Fi location and electronic access data can establish that a tenant abandoned leased premises. After finding no Virginia appellate decision squarely deciding that question, the researcher identifies Bistro Manila, LLC v. Alvah I, LLC which addresses what constitutes abandonment of commercial leased premises, and tenBraak v. Waffle Shops, Inc. which holds that abandonment occurs when a tenant leaves the premises vacant with the intent not to pay rent; Freeport Housing Authority v. Stewart, a New York case, for the use of electronic access-card logs to prove occupancy; and State v. Pierce, a Delaware case, for the evidentiary reliability of Wi-Fi-derived location data.

Find the legislative materials that explain the development, purpose, meaning, amendment, or intended application of a specified codified law that are relevant to a legal issue described by the client.Example:A client, representing an employer defending against an ADA discrimination claim involving an employee whose epilepsy was medicated, asks whether Congress intended the employee’s condition to be evaluated without considering the medication’s ameliorative effects under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(E). The researcher finds the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 3195), H.R. Rep. No. 110-730, the January 29, 2008 House Education and Labor Committee hearing, and the bill’s successive versions (S. 3406), and identifies Congress’s express purpose of rejecting Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. which held that a disability should be determined after considering mitigating measures (eg, medication), and restoring broad ADA coverage by requiring disability determinations without regard to mitigating measures.

Provide metrics and insights, about judges, courts, motion types, attorneys, and law firms, using trends and statistics based on public records, court dockets, and judicial opinions, to answer the clients question(s) in an effort to support predicting case outcomes, assessing legal risks, and formulating data-driven litigation strategies for current and future lawsuits.Example:A client, representing an employer defending an employment-discrimination case, in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge John J. Tharp Jr., asks how the judge has historically handled defendants’ motions for summary judgment in employment cases. The researcher uses Westlaw and LexisNexis litigation-analytics tools to filter by judge, court, case type, motion type, and date range, and reports the judge’s grant/denial rates, and most frequently cited cases to help the attorney assess motion strategy and briefing priorities.

Use historical verdict, judgment, and settlement data to identify patterns and trends in monetary awards and support attorney analysis of comparable claims, injuries, losses, case types, jurisdictions, and venues, evaluate potential case value, assess financial exposure, and formulate data-driven settlement and litigation strategies.Example:A client evaluating a motor-vehicle case involving a cervical fusion surgery asks what settlements have been obtained and what juries have awarded in comparable cases. The researcher uses Westlaw and LexisNexis damages-analytics tools to filter for Virginia cases, cervical-spine injuries, fusion surgery, motor-vehicle negligence, plaintiff age range, venue, and recent time period, then reports the available verdict and settlement counts, median and average awards, award ranges, and comparable case results in a simple table to help the attorney assess potential case value and settlement posture.

Support academics, practitioners, and law students writing law review articles, journal articles, notes, comments, and other scholarly legal works by identifying, retrieving, and organizing the most relevant primary authorities, secondary sources, interdisciplinary literature, and other existing scholarship concerning the research topic.Example:A client preparing to write a law review article asks for 25-30 of the most-cited scholarly articles related to the topic of whether courts should permit parties to rely on litigation analytics showing an assigned judge’s historical ruling patterns when seeking recusal for apparent bias. The researcher identifies the most relevant law review and law journal articles addressing the use of judicial analytics (14 articles), statistical evidence of judicial behavior (9 articles), and data-driven claims of judicial bias (7 articles), and organizes the scholarship by supporting viewpoints, opposing viewpoints, and unresolved or mixed viewpoints, so the client can assess the existing academic debate and identify a potential gap for the article.

A 50-state survey is a legal research tool that compiles and compares the laws, statutes, regulations, or court interpretations of all 50 U.S. states (and often the District of Columbia and U.S. territories) on a specific legal issue. Practitioners use these surveys to quickly see the national landscape of a particular law.Comparative Analysis: They typically present information in a matrix or table format, allowing a practitioner to compare how different jurisdictions approach the same legal question at a glance.Identifying Trends: They help determine whether a majority rule, minority rule, or emerging trend exists across the country.Drafting and Lobbying: Lawyers use them when drafting multi-state contracts, advising clients with national operations, or arguing for a specific interpretation of the law by showing how other states handle it.Example:A client, representing the Legal & Compliance department of a national employer asks the researcher to determine which states require employers to reimburse employees for mandatory business use of personal cell phones. The researcher compiles the governing law for all 50 states, identifies states with express statutory reimbursement duties, states where reimbursement obligations arise through wage-and-hour or expense-reimbursement rules, and states with no specific requirement, and presents the results in a comparative state-by-state table.

Identify, organize, and integrate regulatory requirements across multiple jurisdictions, industry standards, and regulatory frameworks (e.g., statutes, regulations, advisory opinions). The compliance framework synthesizes and ties together select regulatory themes (i.e., risk areas) with the organization's corresponding obligations from each of the applicable laws into an easy-to-reference table format that supports comparative analysis, compliance assessments, audits, policy development, control design, and regulatory change management by Legal & Compliance Departments.Example:A Privacy & AI Counsel advising the Legal & Compliance Department of a financial services company asks the researcher to build a compliance framework for a company deploying AI systems that process California consumer data. The researcher maps the applicable requirements of the California Consumer Privacy Act and its implementing regulations, 11 C.C.R. §§ 7000 et seq., with the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), integrating the regulatory requirements for data-use restrictions, consumer rights, transparency, governance, risk assessment, testing, and ongoing monitoring in a single comparative table.

Locate, retrieve, and organize relevant federal, state, and local public records to verify facts, investigate parties and entities, establish timelines, identify property or business interests, and support litigation, due diligence, compliance, and other legal research needs.Example:An employment litigation client representing a regional healthcare company is defending a wrongful-termination suit in which the plaintiff-former employee alleges she was fired in retaliation for reporting unsafe workplace practices. The client asks the researcher to determine whether the plaintiff or her former business previously faced government enforcement or professional disciplinary action involving similar safety issues.The researcher searches Virginia Department of Health records, professional licensing-board disciplinary records, and OSHA enforcement materials, for the prior ten years. The researcher identifies and retrieves responsive inspection reports, citations, consent orders, disciplinary decisions, and penalty records; verifies the parties and dates; organizes the records chronologically.

Locate and review relevant court dockets to identify cases, filings, parties, attorneys, judges, procedural events, deadlines, and litigation history that can support case assessment, fact development, strategy, due diligence, and related legal research.Example:A commercial litigator-client representing a software company is considering filing suit against its former distributor for breach of contract and misuse of confidential information. Before filing, the attorney asks the researcher to determine whether the distributor has been involved in similar litigation with other vendors or business partners.The researcher searches Virginia state and federal court dockets for the prior ten years, identifies related lawsuits involving contract disputes, confidentiality claims, and terminated distribution relationships. The researcher retrieves the relevant complaints, answers, motions, and disposition records. The researcher summarizes recurring allegations, defenses, prior admissions, and case outcomes so the attorney can assess potential claims, anticipate defenses, and refine the proposed complaint.Similar prior allegations. Another vendor may have alleged that the distributor improperly retained customer lists, pricing data, source materials, or other confidential information after termination. That could give the attorney additional factual leads, potential witnesses, and discovery targets.Recurring defenses. The distributor may repeatedly argue that certain information was not confidential, that confidentiality obligations expired, or that termination was wrongful. The attorney can anticipate those defenses and draft the complaint and preservation requests to address them from the outset.Prior admissions or inconsistent positions. In an earlier case, the distributor may have acknowledged that particular information was proprietary or that its distribution agreement imposed continuing confidentiality obligations. Those statements could be investigated for potential use in discovery, deposition preparation, impeachment, or motion practice.Names of knowledgeable people. Prior pleadings may identify former executives, employees, sales representatives, consultants, or business partners who have knowledge about the distributor’s practices. Those people can become investigative or discovery leads.Documents worth requesting. Earlier litigation may reveal the existence of internal policies, termination procedures, customer databases, communications systems, or categories of records the attorney would otherwise not know to request.Settlement or litigation patterns. If similar disputes repeatedly settled after a particular motion or discovery event, that may help the attorney understand where factual or procedural pressure points tend to arise.