Not exact matches
That approach to
legal reasoning is a classic rookie mistake that gets a lot of young
associate attorneys
doing legal research into trouble by overstating the confidence that they should have in their conclusions when there is no case right on point addressing a situation.
Imagine a new kind of
legal research system that can gather much of the information you need to
do your job — a digital
associate, if you will.
Smaller firms don't have the manpower to keep
associates locked away in back rooms
doing legal research.
Effective
legal research requires deep focus and concentration yet... «the myth of cost effective
research» requires an
associate to engage half of their attention on a collateral and competing analysis of factors which have nothing to
do with the substance of the law.
Gillian Calder is an
associate professor of law teaching constitutional law and family law at the University of Victoria Faculty of Law and
doing research on critical
legal pedagogy.
Partly this is divided by area of practice: I have observed few solicitors
doing much
legal research using commentary, though junior
associates and articling students
do more.
Well, just like when I
did basic
legal research (as a naive young
associate), I scanned the search results to see if they had any useful verbiage, or otherwise provided helpful clues.
I think there's always going to be room for them maybe in the secondary market or in workflow or things like that, but I
do think that there is that — in the same way that Starbucks made coffee a lot more accessible to people and created a lot more coffee drinkers and made the experience more enjoyable and really kind of raised the floor for coffee in America, I think there's room for a company like Fastcase to raise the floor for everybody to make
legal research something that isn't intimidating, that partners can
do and young
associates can
do and law students can
do in a compelling, powerful way and without being afraid.