Legal Research – Basics

Why legal research?

Clients approach an attorney, to pursue a legal remedy for any “wrong” done to them or to enforce a right which is lawfully theirs. This could arise in any sphere of law - civil or criminal or a tort. To pursue a proper remedy, an attorney needs to understand:

• the law governing the subject matter,

• the jurisdiction under which the remedy is sought or the right is to be enforced,

• how and what was enacted,

• how over a period of time that law or a provision of it has undergone changes due to amendments or repeals, and

• how the courts have interpreted the law in order to achieve justice and equity.

This knowledge is the armory for him to defend his clients’ remedies or to enforce their rights. Legal research is the pursuit of finding the answers to the questions above.

Simply put, it is the systematic discovery of what has happened in the past, in litigations arising out of most similar situations and presenting them to the judges as persuasively as an attorney could.

Let’s take an example of accident victim who seeks compensation. The quantum of compensation is a point in dispute. All other factors like rash, negligent or drunken driving have been either proven or admitted.

Which courts have granted compensations in similar situations? Literally, all of them have. Let’s assume that present case falls under the jurisdiction of Arizona.

Then an attorney shall research the most similar cases with most similar points in dispute within that jurisdiction. Here, the quantum of compensation is in dispute. Not anything else. The research is narrowed down further. What has the courts pronounced as the rationale for their decisions. Judiciary does not have time to re-invent the wheel; nor is there a need. Cases have been disposed off in the past involving similar situations. Attorneys help courts in quick disposal of cases, by proper research, compilation and presentation.

Now the more pertinent questions arise - what are the factors which have guided the courts in determining the amount of compensation in the past?

The age of the victim?

His weekly earnings?

His health conditions?

Contributory negligence of the victim?

The time of the accident?

The extent of negligence by the perpetrator?

The mental condition of the perpetrator?

The age of the perpetrator?

The earnings and wealth of the perpetrator?

This could be an endless list. Is it any or a combination of one or all the above facts that have guided the courts in fixing the compensation?

A shrewd attorney would narrow it down further that are more appropriate to the case in hand and present them persuasively in the court.

All legal disputes involve legal research. But the nature, depth and breadth would vary based on many factors.

To be continued….

Please share your comments and opinions to the author. I welcome criticisms.