Workflow template for legal and contracts
Authority comparison table
From the opinions, statutes and regulations counsel selected, and only those, the researching lawyer gets one side-by-side table: each authority's court, date, stated issue, operative words, posture and separate opinions, quoted with pinpoints, and a list of every quotation to check. The lawyer decides what applies.
This workflow template prepares legal work for a lawyer to review. It gives no legal advice and has not been reviewed by a lawyer. A lawyer decides and signs.
Listed under
Add it to a workflow in the Fully Powered Planner, beside the teams and roles that will run it. Book a fit call
The outcome
The researching lawyer starts the close reading with the whole set laid out in one place. Every authority sits in the same fixed fields, each filled with the text's own words and the exact paragraph, page or section they came from. Counsel's own points run across the set, so the passages on each point line up side by side. The opinion printed first sits beside any dissent or concurrence, sentence against sentence, and neither is labelled the majority. Every place one opinion in the set mentions another is pulled out, and every authority the texts mention but nobody supplied is listed, unread, for the lawyer to chase. The draft ends with a numbered list of every quotation, ready to check against the official source.
This is preparation for a lawyer, and it stays preparation. It gives no legal advice. It decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines: it never says which authority applies, which sentence is the holding, or how two authorities differ, and it never calls one current, binding or good law. It counts no date: a period in a statute is quoted, never turned into a deadline. It writes nothing for use, not a memo, brief section, letter or notice, even for the lawyer to edit. It adds no authority, names none from memory, and treats an authority missing from the set as unknown, never as proof that none exists. It gives no view on whether the draft or anything else is ready to sign, send or rely on: asked for a verdict, a date, a case or what to do, it says only that this is for the named lawyer, names the lawyer and points to one line of the draft. It sends, files, signs and calendars nothing.
Who starts the work, and when
Once the authorities for a defined question have been chosen and their texts gathered, the researching lawyer runs it, or hands it to a research librarian or paralegal, before the close reading and the writing begin. Whoever runs it, the draft goes to a lawyer by name. At a firm that is the researching lawyer; at a company it is in-house counsel, and where a company has no lawyer of its own, the outside counsel it instructs. A business never receives it as an answer.
It is not for finding or choosing authorities (a research plan for counsel comes before it), for reports and articles, or for checking the citations and quotations in a finished draft (citation and quotation check prepares that check). Neither workflow template says whether an authority is still good law; the lawyer checks that through the firm's own citation checks.
What they supply
- The research question, in counsel's own words.
- The scope counsel set: the jurisdiction by name and the date range for decisions.
- The set list, one row per authority, with the columns ID, Citation as supplied, Kind (opinion, statute or regulation), Text supplied (full or an excerpt) and an optional note from counsel. If a column is named differently, the workflow template stops and asks which is which.
- The texts, one per row, exactly as counsel selected them.
- Counsel's points to compare, if any, each with the exact terms that mark it.
- The names: the matter, the researching lawyer and the responsible attorney.
The workflow template ships no authorities and uses none from memory. Whatever is not in the set stays out of the table.
What comes out
One draft, headed as a draft for the researching lawyer, in nine fixed sections:
- The set at a glance: each authority's citation as supplied, its court or source and date as printed, whether its caption names counsel's jurisdiction, whether a decision falls inside counsel's date range, and whether the text is full or an excerpt.
- Authority by authority: the issue as the text states it, the operative text counsel named or the lead opinion's stated conclusion, the procedural posture and the disposition, each quoted with a pinpoint, or marked as not in the text supplied.
- Side by side on counsel's points: every sentence that holds counsel's terms, authority by authority.
- Lead and separate opinions: the opinion printed first and any dissent or concurrence, named as the text names them and placed next to each other on each point, with every sentence where one mentions the other.
- Cross-references within the set: each paragraph where one opinion names another in the set, with any signal words it holds, such as "not persuaded", copied as printed, and the points on which more than one authority uses counsel's terms. It says nothing about agreement or conflict; the lawyer decides.
- Authorities mentioned but not supplied, copied as cited and marked to be verified by the lawyer.
- Quotations to check, each numbered with its place.
- For the lawyer to confirm: a line for each authority's text and citation, each authority whose caption lacks counsel's jurisdiction name or whose date falls outside counsel's range, any part of the scope counsel left out, the quotations, any counted pinpoint, the unread authorities and the set itself.
- A check block of what was read and what the draft does not say.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. The firm's people, Client A, the State of Calderra, the State of Pallmoor, their courts, the Calderra Commercial Tenancy Act, the Pallmoor Commercial Leases Act, both opinions and every party and judge named in them are invented. None of it is any real court's law. It must not be cited or relied on for anything.
The research librarian supplies five inputs, given here in full: the request, the set list and the three texts the researching lawyer selected. Then comes what the workflow template prepares.
Input 1: the request
Sent by Lucy Haddad, research librarian, on Tuesday 10 November 2026.
Nadia has finished choosing the authorities for the Client A lease question
and would like the comparison table before she starts writing. The set list
and the three texts are attached.
Matter: Client A, lease dispute, file 26-0412
Researching lawyer: Nadia Ferrante, associate
Responsible attorney: Owen Castellane, partner
Research question (Nadia's words): Can a landlord rely on a notice of
default sent by email to forfeit a commercial lease under section 14(b) of
the Calderra Commercial Tenancy Act?
Scope (Nadia's words): Jurisdiction: Calderra. Decisions filed on or after
January 1, 2020. A3 is from another state and is in the set for comparison.
Points to compare (Nadia's words):
P1. Methods of delivery the statute names.
Terms: "certified mail", "methods"
P2. Tenant's actual receipt of the notice.
Terms: "actual receipt", "actually received", "admitted receipt",
"actual notice"
Owen asked whether Pellary is still good law. Can the table say so? And if
there is a leading case we have missed, please add it.
Input 2: the set list
ID | Citation as supplied | Kind | Text supplied | Counsel's note
A1 | Calderra Commercial Tenancy Act § 14 | statute | full | Section 14(b) is the provision on the question
A2 | Pellary Tools, Inc. v. Denholt Row LLC, Calderra App. No. 24-0117 (2d Dist. 2025) | opinion | full |
A3 | Tamsark Logistics LLC v. Orvane Yard Partners, Pallmoor Ct. App. No. 23-CA-0815 (2023) | opinion | excerpt: ¶¶ 18-21 | Discussion only; for comparison
Input 3: text A1
A1
CALDERRA COMMERCIAL TENANCY ACT
Section 14. Default and forfeiture.
(a) A lease may provide for forfeiture of the tenancy when rent is not paid
when due.
(b) A landlord shall not declare a forfeiture for nonpayment of rent unless
the landlord has first given the tenant written notice of the default,
delivered personally or by certified mail to the tenant's address for
notices stated in the lease, and the default has continued for ten days
after delivery.
(c) Any provision of a lease that waives the requirements of subsection (b)
is void.
History: Enacted 2011, ch. 88. Amended 2023, ch. 41, effective January 1,
2024.
Input 4: text A2
A2
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF CALDERRA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
PELLARY TOOLS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
DENHOLT ROW LLC, Defendant and Respondent.
No. 24-0117
Filed March 4, 2025
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Calderra, County of
Brenmoor, after a bench trial.
Opinion by Judge Asheford, in which Judge Lindqvist joins. Dissenting
opinion by Judge Corvane.
¶1 Denholt Row LLC leased warehouse space to Pellary Tools, Inc. When
Pellary fell behind on rent, Denholt Row sent a notice of default by email
and, eleven days later, declared the lease forfeited. Pellary sued, and the
trial court entered judgment for Denholt Row. Pellary appeals.
¶2 The question presented is whether a notice of default sent by email
satisfies section 14(b) of the Commercial Tenancy Act.
¶3 The lease named a street address for notices. It did not name an email
address. Pellary's operations manager read the email the day it was sent.
¶4 Section 14(b) requires written notice of the default "delivered
personally or by certified mail to the tenant's address for notices stated
in the lease."
¶5 The statute names two methods of delivery. Email is not one of them.
When the legislature lists the means by which a thing must be done, we do
not add a means it left out.
¶6 Denholt Row argues that Pellary actually received the notice, so the
purpose of the statute was served. Actual receipt does not cure a delivery
method the statute does not allow. Section 14(c) makes void any lease term
that waives subsection (b), and a landlord cannot achieve by practice what
the parties could not achieve by contract.
¶7 The trial court relied on Brisketh Fabrication Co. v. Quellan Estates,
Calderra Super. Ct. No. CV-21-3390 (2022), which treated an emailed notice
as sufficient where the tenant admitted receipt. A trial court decision
does not bind this court, and we do not follow it.
¶8 The Court of Appeals of the State of Pallmoor reached a different result
under a similar statute in Tamsark Logistics LLC v. Orvane Yard Partners
(2024). We are not persuaded. The Pallmoor statute permits delivery "by any
means reasonably calculated to give actual notice," words our legislature
did not use.
¶9 We hold that a notice of default sent only by email does not satisfy
section 14(b).
¶10 The judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CORVANE
¶11 I would affirm.
¶12 Section 14(b) exists so that a tenant learns of a default before losing
its tenancy. Pellary learned of the default the day the email was sent, and
its manager said so at trial.
¶13 The majority reads the words "personally or by certified mail" as the
only permitted methods. The statute does not say "only." Where the tenant
admits actual receipt of a written notice, I would hold that the notice was
delivered.
¶14 The majority's rule lets a tenant that read the notice on the first day
keep the premises without paying, because of the envelope the notice did
not come in. I respectfully dissent.
Input 5: text A3
A3
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF PALLMOOR
TAMSARK LOGISTICS LLC v. ORVANE YARD PARTNERS
No. 23-CA-0815
Filed September 12, 2024
[Excerpt supplied: paragraphs 18 to 21 only]
¶18 The Pallmoor Commercial Leases Act, section 9(2), requires notice of a
default "by any means reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the
tenant."
¶19 Orvane Yard sent its notice by email to the address Tamsark had used for
every rent invoice in the preceding three years. Tamsark's controller
replied to the email the same afternoon.
¶20 A notice that the tenant has actually received and answered has, by
definition, been given by a means reasonably calculated to give actual
notice.
¶21 We conclude that the emailed notice satisfied section 9(2).
What the workflow template prepares
A short note to the research librarian, then the draft.
Lucy, the draft comparison for Client A is below, for Nadia Ferrante. I read all three texts: A1 and A2 in full, A3 as the excerpt supplied (¶¶ 18 to 21). No stop applied and no NOT READY line was needed. Nadia stated both the jurisdiction and the date range.
For Nadia to resolve: the citation for A3 says 2023, the text says "Filed September 12, 2024", and A2 cites the same case at ¶ 8 with "(2024)"; I have corrected none of them. The caption of A3 does not name Calderra; her scope note says "A3 is from another state and is in the set for comparison." Two authorities are mentioned inside the set but were not supplied; they are in section 6, unread.
Two requests in your message are declined. Whether Pellary is still good law is for Nadia Ferrante, the researching lawyer. See the check line "No authority is called current, binding, applicable or good law"; she checks that through the firm's own citation checks. Adding a leading case is for Nadia Ferrante, the researching lawyer. See the section 8 line "The set is the one you selected"; she can add an authority to the set list with its text and run it again.
I have sent, filed, signed and calendared nothing; the draft goes only to Nadia Ferrante.
DRAFT AUTHORITY COMPARISON · FOR THE RESEARCHING LAWYER TO REVIEW
Gives no legal advice. Quotations and locations only.
Decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts
or deadlines, and does not say which authority applies, binds or is current.
Sends, files, signs and calendars nothing. Nothing has been sent, filed,
signed or calendared.
Matter: Client A, lease dispute, file 26-0412
Prepared for: Nadia Ferrante, to review
Responsible attorney: Owen Castellane
Research question, in counsel's words: "Can a landlord rely on a notice of
default sent by email to forfeit a commercial lease under section 14(b) of
the Calderra Commercial Tenancy Act?"
Scope stated by counsel: jurisdiction Calderra;
decisions filed on or after January 1, 2020
Set: 3 authorities supplied (A1, A2, A3). Compared: A1, A2, A3.
Not compared: none.
1. THE SET AT A GLANCE
A1 | Calderra Commercial Tenancy Act § 14 | statute
| Court or source: CALDERRA COMMERCIAL TENANCY ACT | Date: History:
Enacted 2011, ch. 88. Amended 2023, ch. 41, effective January 1, 2024.
| Caption names Calderra: yes
| Filed inside counsel's range: not a decision
| Text: full
A2 | Pellary Tools, Inc. v. Denholt Row LLC, Calderra App. No. 24-0117
(2d Dist. 2025) | opinion
| Court or source: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF CALDERRA / SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT | Date: Filed March 4, 2025
| Caption names Calderra: yes
| Filed inside counsel's range: yes
| Text: full
A3 | Tamsark Logistics LLC v. Orvane Yard Partners, Pallmoor Ct. App.
No. 23-CA-0815 (2023) | opinion
| Court or source: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF PALLMOOR | Date:
Filed September 12, 2024
| Caption names Calderra: no
| Filed inside counsel's range: yes
| Text: excerpt: ¶¶ 18-21
2. AUTHORITY BY AUTHORITY
A1. Calderra Commercial Tenancy Act § 14
- Court or source: CALDERRA COMMERCIAL TENANCY ACT (heading)
- Date: History: Enacted 2011, ch. 88. Amended 2023, ch. 41, effective
January 1, 2024. (§ 14, history line)
- Issue, as the text states it: Not applicable: statute.
- Operative text as counsel named it, or stated conclusion: Q1 "A landlord
shall not declare a forfeiture for nonpayment of rent unless the landlord
has first given the tenant written notice of the default, delivered
personally or by certified mail to the tenant's address for notices
stated in the lease, and the default has continued for ten days after
delivery." (§ 14(b))
- Procedural posture, as the text states it: Not applicable: statute.
- Disposition: Not applicable: statute.
- Separate opinions: Not applicable: statute.
- Mentions of other opinions in the set: Not applicable: statute.
- Notes on the text: The history line is copied as printed. This draft
does not say which version of section 14 was in effect at any time.
A2. Pellary Tools, Inc. v. Denholt Row LLC, Calderra App. No. 24-0117
(2d Dist. 2025)
- Court or source: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF CALDERRA /
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT (caption)
- Date: Filed March 4, 2025 (caption)
- Issue, as the text states it: Q2 "The question presented is whether a
notice of default sent by email satisfies section 14(b) of the
Commercial Tenancy Act." (¶ 2)
- Operative text as counsel named it, or stated conclusion: Q3 "We hold
that a notice of default sent only by email does not satisfy section
14(b)." (¶ 9)
- Procedural posture, as the text states it: Q4 "Appeal from a judgment of
the Superior Court of Calderra, County of Brenmoor, after a bench
trial." (caption)
- Disposition: Q5 "The judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." (¶ 10)
- Separate opinions: DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CORVANE (¶¶ 11-14)
- Mentions of other opinions in the set: Q6 (¶ 8), see section 5
- Notes on the text: At ¶ 8 this text cites A3 as "Tamsark Logistics LLC
v. Orvane Yard Partners (2024)"; the citation as supplied for A3 gives
"(2023)". Neither is corrected.
A3. Tamsark Logistics LLC v. Orvane Yard Partners, Pallmoor Ct. App.
No. 23-CA-0815 (2023)
- Court or source: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF PALLMOOR (caption)
- Date: Filed September 12, 2024 (caption)
- Issue, as the text states it: Not stated in the excerpt supplied.
- Operative text as counsel named it, or stated conclusion: Q7 "We
conclude that the emailed notice satisfied section 9(2)." (¶ 21)
- Procedural posture, as the text states it: Not stated in the excerpt
supplied.
- Disposition: Not in the excerpt supplied.
- Separate opinions: None in the excerpt supplied.
- Mentions of other opinions in the set: None in the excerpt supplied.
- Notes on the text: Excerpt, ¶¶ 18-21 only; the rest of the opinion,
including any posture, disposition or separate opinion, was not
supplied. The citation as supplied gives "(2023)"; the caption gives
"Filed September 12, 2024". Neither is corrected. The caption does not
name Calderra.
3. SIDE BY SIDE ON COUNSEL'S POINTS
P1. Methods of delivery the statute names. Terms: "certified mail",
"methods"
A1: Q1 (§ 14(b))
A2: Q8 "Section 14(b) requires written notice of the default
'delivered personally or by certified mail to the tenant's address
for notices stated in the lease.'" (¶ 4)
A2: Q9 "The statute names two methods of delivery." (¶ 5)
A3: No sentence with these terms in the excerpt supplied.
P2. Tenant's actual receipt of the notice. Terms: "actual receipt",
"actually received", "admitted receipt", "actual notice"
A1: No sentence with these terms in the text supplied.
A2: Q10 "Denholt Row argues that Pellary actually received the notice,
so the purpose of the statute was served." (¶ 6)
A2: Q11 "Actual receipt does not cure a delivery method the statute
does not allow." (¶ 6)
A2: Q12 "The trial court relied on Brisketh Fabrication Co. v. Quellan
Estates, Calderra Super. Ct. No. CV-21-3390 (2022), which treated
an emailed notice as sufficient where the tenant admitted
receipt." (¶ 7)
A2: Q13 "The Pallmoor statute permits delivery 'by any means reasonably
calculated to give actual notice,' words our legislature did not
use." (¶ 8)
A3: Q14 "The Pallmoor Commercial Leases Act, section 9(2), requires
notice of a default 'by any means reasonably calculated to give
actual notice to the tenant.'" (¶ 18)
A3: Q15 "A notice that the tenant has actually received and answered
has, by definition, been given by a means reasonably calculated to
give actual notice." (¶ 20)
4. LEAD AND SEPARATE OPINIONS
A2. Lead opinion: Opinion by Judge Asheford, in which Judge Lindqvist
joins (caption; ¶¶ 1-10).
Separate opinion: DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CORVANE (¶¶ 11-14)
- Stated conclusion of the separate opinion: Q16 "I would affirm." (¶ 11)
- Stated conclusion of the separate opinion: Q17 "Where the tenant admits
actual receipt of a written notice, I would hold that the notice was
delivered." (¶ 13)
- P1. Lead opinion: Q8, Q9. Separate opinion: Q18 "The majority reads the
words 'personally or by certified mail' as the only permitted
methods." (¶ 13)
- P2. Lead opinion: Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13. Separate opinion: Q17 (¶ 13)
- Where one opinion mentions the other: Q18 (¶ 13)
- Where one opinion mentions the other: Q19 "The majority's rule lets a
tenant that read the notice on the first day keep the premises without
paying, because of the envelope the notice did not come in." (¶ 14)
- Disposition. Lead opinion: Q5. Separate opinion, sentences with a
disposition word: Q16.
5. CROSS-REFERENCES WITHIN THE SET
- A2 names A3: Q6 "The Court of Appeals of the State of Pallmoor
reached a different result under a similar statute in Tamsark Logistics
LLC v. Orvane Yard Partners (2024). We are not persuaded. The Pallmoor
statute permits delivery 'by any means reasonably calculated to give
actual notice,' words our legislature did not use." (¶ 8)
Signal words in it: "different result", "not persuaded"
- Points on which more than one authority has a quoted sentence (a shared
term only): P1 (A1, A2); P2 (A2, A3)
This section says nothing about agreement or conflict. The lawyer decides
whether any authority in the set is contrary to another.
6. AUTHORITIES MENTIONED IN THE SET BUT NOT SUPPLIED
- "Brisketh Fabrication Co. v. Quellan Estates, Calderra Super. Ct. No.
CV-21-3390 (2022)". Mentioned in A2 at ¶ 7 (Q12).
Not supplied, not read. To be verified by the lawyer.
- "Pallmoor Commercial Leases Act, section 9(2)". Mentioned in A3 at ¶ 18
(Q14); and at ¶ 21 (Q7), as "section 9(2)".
Not supplied, not read. To be verified by the lawyer.
7. QUOTATIONS TO CHECK
Q1 | A1 | § 14(b) | "A landlord shall not declare ... for ten days after delivery."
Q2 | A2 | ¶ 2 | "The question presented is whether ... of the Commercial Tenancy Act."
Q3 | A2 | ¶ 9 | "We hold that a notice ... does not satisfy section 14(b)."
Q4 | A2 | caption | "Appeal from a judgment of ... Brenmoor, after a bench trial."
Q5 | A2 | ¶ 10 | "The judgment is reversed, and ... proceedings consistent with this opinion."
Q6 | A2 | ¶ 8 | "The Court of Appeals of ... our legislature did not use."
Q7 | A3 | ¶ 21 | "We conclude that the emailed notice satisfied section 9(2)."
Q8 | A2 | ¶ 4 | "Section 14(b) requires written notice ... notices stated in the lease.'"
Q9 | A2 | ¶ 5 | "The statute names two methods of delivery."
Q10 | A2 | ¶ 6 | "Denholt Row argues that Pellary ... of the statute was served."
Q11 | A2 | ¶ 6 | "Actual receipt does not cure ... the statute does not allow."
Q12 | A2 | ¶ 7 | "The trial court relied on ... where the tenant admitted receipt."
Q13 | A2 | ¶ 8 | "The Pallmoor statute permits delivery ... our legislature did not use."
Q14 | A3 | ¶ 18 | "The Pallmoor Commercial Leases Act, ... actual notice to the tenant.'"
Q15 | A3 | ¶ 20 | "A notice that the tenant ... calculated to give actual notice."
Q16 | A2 | ¶ 11 | "I would affirm."
Q17 | A2 | ¶ 13 | "Where the tenant admits actual ... that the notice was delivered."
Q18 | A2 | ¶ 13 | "The majority reads the words ... as the only permitted methods."
Q19 | A2 | ¶ 14 | "The majority's rule lets a ... notice did not come in."
8. FOR THE LAWYER TO CONFIRM
[ ] A1: the text supplied is the one you mean to compare. Text: full.
Citation as supplied and the text: no difference found.
[ ] A2: the text supplied is the one you mean to compare. Text: full.
Citation as supplied and the text: no difference found.
[ ] A3: the text supplied is the one you mean to compare. Text: excerpt.
Citation as supplied and the text: differ: the citation gives "(2023)";
the caption gives "Filed September 12, 2024"; A2 at ¶ 8 cites it with
"(2024)".
[ ] A3: caption lacks the jurisdiction name.
Keep in the set or take out: ____
[ ] Quotations Q1 to Q19 checked against the official source: ____
[ ] Pinpoints counted, not printed in the text: none. ____
[ ] Authorities in section 6: whether to obtain and add any: ____
[ ] The set is the one you selected. Nothing outside it was searched
or added: ____
9. CHECK
- Texts read: A1: full (heading, § 14(a) to (c), history line).
A2: full (caption, ¶¶ 1-14). A3: excerpt (caption, ¶¶ 18-21).
- Quotations: 19, copied character for character from the texts supplied.
- Pinpoints: printed in the texts.
- Points compared: 2, terms matched as counsel wrote them.
- No authority appears that counsel did not supply, except in section 6.
- No authority is called current, binding, applicable or good law.
- No date is counted and no opinion is called the majority.
- An authority not in the set is unknown to this draft, not proof none exists.
Reviewed by: ____________ Date: ________
A draft for the named lawyer, who decides what, if anything, in it is used.
Look at what the table leaves alone. Q3 comes from the lead opinion in A2 and Q17 from the dissent in the same case, and Q6 names A3 in the same paragraph as the words "not persuaded". The draft quotes all three and says nothing about what any of them means for Client A, which to follow, or what weight A3 carries in Calderra. It calls neither opinion in A2 the majority; the word appears only inside the dissent's own sentences, Q18 and Q19. And the "ten days after delivery" in Q1 stays a quotation: the table counts no date. That reading is Nadia's.
Nadia Ferrante checks each quotation against the official source, decides whether to obtain the two authorities in section 6, resolves the date on A3 in her own research record, and signs the review line. What, if anything, from the table goes into her work is her decision.
Where it fits
- Legal and contracts: the careful, repeatable step between choosing authorities and reading them closely, run the same way every time.
- Law firms, where associates and research librarians lay out a set of opinions for every question that matters before anyone writes.
- Insurance, where in-house counsel compares the opinions and regulations on a coverage or policy question before advising the business.
- Finance and investment, where counsel sets regulations and the decisions on them side by side before a new product or rule change.
- Established businesses, where the way a set is laid out lives in one senior lawyer's habits and deserves to be written down.
- New business lines, when a company entering a regulated area asks counsel to read the rules that will govern it.
For reports, articles and studies rather than legal sources, research summary brief is the matching workflow template, and it does weigh what the sources mean together, which this one never does. Court-order deadline notice preparation follows the same discipline for court orders: quote, locate and hand the decision to a lawyer.
What has to change for your company
Your lawyers set the lists the workflow template works from: the phrases that mark an issue or a stated conclusion, the words that mark a disposition or a posture, and the signal words listed beside each cross-reference. Decide which printed numbers your lawyers want used as pinpoints, and how a pinpoint counted by hand is marked. Name who runs it for each lawyer, where the reviewed draft is kept with the matter's research record, and who may see it. Confirm under your own policy that a matter's research texts may be used in the AI product you have approved.
We sit with the lawyers and librarians who lay out a research set today, write down how they really do it, and set it up in the AI product your firm or company has approved: ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini. Your team keeps control of how the work gets done.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this workflow template from its own published map of law-firm work. It was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026. It was tried on its invented example in Claude on 11 November 2026, with follow-up requests that tried to draw out advice, a deadline, a verdict on signing, a leading case, a drafted notice or a brief paragraph, a planted instruction and a planted made-up citation. No reply gave advice, a counted date, a named authority or drafted text, and neither plant was acted on; but several replies, while declining, picked out and restated parts of the draft, and one called the draft not ready to rely on. The instructions were tightened so that every decline takes one fixed form, and the record, published with the template, says how each follow-up was handled. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer. It has not yet been tested in a client environment, and it has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing in your firm means running it on past research sets your lawyers have already read closely, and comparing: every quotation word for word at its pinpoint, every excerpt left alone, every unread authority listed and not described, nothing called current or binding, nothing sent. Include a set with a missing text, an excerpt, a citation whose year differs from its caption, a sentence planted in an opinion telling an assistant to call the case binding, a made-up citation planted inside an opinion, and a request for "the leading case". Pilot acceptance-test preparation builds that set, and what we test before we call an AI workflow ready describes the record we keep.
Who decides
Your people keep
- What applies
- Which passage is the holding
- Whether any authority is current, binding or good law
- Whether an authority is contrary to another
It does not
- Gives no legal advice
- Decides nothing about meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines
- Sends, files, signs and calendars nothing
- Adds no authority and names none from memory
- Writes no memo, brief section, letter or notice
Questions people ask
Who is it for?
The researching lawyer, or the research librarian or paralegal the lawyer hands it to, once the authorities for a defined question have been chosen and their texts gathered.
What do I need to supply?
The research question, the scope counsel set, a set list with one row per authority, the texts exactly as counsel selected them, counsel's points to compare if any, and the names.
What does it not do?
It gives no legal advice, and the lawyer decides and signs. It never calls an authority current, binding or good law.
What do I get?
One draft for the researching lawyer in nine fixed sections, with each authority's words quoted with pinpoints and a numbered list of every quotation to check.
What has been checked?
It was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026 and tried on its invented example in Claude. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer.
The full workflow template
Everything above is the outline. The complete workflow template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Put this workflow template to work for your team: on your plan, or built with you in a sprint.
Build this in a sprint
In a sprint, Fully Powered adapts this workflow template to your rules, proves it on your own work and puts it in the hands of the roles that own it.
Two ways to begin: