Students Are Looking Beyond the Boolean Search

• Date: September 20, 2018

The cohort of students currently in law school and the junior ranks of firms are often described as “digital natives.” Wherever possible, we prefer to access information online instead of going to the library for books or other secondary sources. Our preference for online research is reinforced as we learn to engage with legal information. In our first year of law school, we are directed primarily to online platforms like CanLII, Quicklaw, Westlaw, and SSRN, and are encouraged to develop our skills in operating those services.

My generation of law students not only grew up with technology, but with the mindset that technology will (or should) always evolve in ways that make things more efficient, and easier to use.

In the realm of legal research and technology, that rapid change is happening in the U.S. and Canada, where several companies are advancing what’s possible. Tools exist or are being developed that, for example, analyze briefs or written materials, predict trial outcomes, or help you tailor arguments to a particular judge. Established players, like the American branches of LexisNexis and Westlaw, whether through buying startups or building products themselves are part of this trend and also offer analytics for litigation to gauge the history of your court, judge, and opposing counsel. This will be the new normal.

Some of the most exciting tools aim to disrupt how lawyers find relevant cases. Research conducted by the American start-up, Casetext, found that 83% of judges and their clerks find gaps in submissions that could impact the trial “at least some of the time.” Comparable figures aren’t available in Canada but are likely similar given similar reliance on traditional research tools. As a student or junior associate still learning the law, with pressure from clients, supervising lawyers (and our student loans!) to get it right, it is essential to know that our research hits all of the relevant points. Casetext’s study illustrates that research and advocacy efforts, even of experienced counsel, can frequently fall short.

The keyword and Boolean searches we conduct on established databases can yield a lot of information. If we’re looking for a particular term of art, or category of cases, the intuitive search can give us results instantly. The problem is, the results can be overwhelming, too narrowly defined, or far off point – sometimes all at the same time. A search for common terms, might yield tens of thousands of cases, and lead to...