Workflow template for legal and contracts
Research plan for counsel
Before an associate or paralegal starts on a partner's research question, they hold a one-to-two-page plan: the question split into sub-questions, the stated facts against each, the firm's own notes to read first, where to search and with what terms, and the gaps. Leads, not authorities: nothing is named from memory.
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.
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 researcher starts from a map of the work instead of a blank page. The partner's question is broken into its parts, in the partner's own words, so the scope can be confirmed before hours go into it. Every fact supplied is quoted with where it came from, and every document mentioned but not yet in hand is listed. The firm's own notes and earlier memos come first, with the ones due for review marked. The kinds of source to search and a set of search terms follow, each term traced back to the inputs it came from. Anything from research already done is copied exactly, with what is missing from each reference shown.
The plan is headed "leads, not authorities", and it means it. It names no case, statute or rule from memory, ever. If someone asks it for "the leading case", it says no. An authority appears only when it is already in the inputs, copied exactly where it stands, listed with the research supplied and marked "to be verified by the lawyer". It gives no legal advice; decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines; and sends, files, signs and calendars nothing. Asked for a verdict, a deadline, an amount, a case or what to do, it says that is for the named lawyer and points to the part of the plan concerned, and nothing more. The researching lawyer chooses the searches, finds every authority and verifies each one.
Who starts the work, and when
An associate starts it when a partner or the responsible attorney hands over a research question, before the research begins or just after a first look. A paralegal can start it too, for a named lawyer; the paralegal's own name is not enough. The plan is always prepared for that lawyer and headed as a draft for them to confirm. If the person asking is not a lawyer, the plan is addressed only to the outside counsel they name, opens by saying it is not an answer, and shows the question, jurisdiction and court as that person's words until outside counsel states them.
It is not for answering the question, writing the research memo or advising a client.
What they supply
- The request: the partner's question in the partner's words, the matter, the practice area, the lawyer the plan is for, and when the research is wanted.
- The facts as they stand: the partner's message, the intake note or other matter notes.
- The jurisdiction and court level, as the partner stated them. The plan never infers them.
- An export of the firm's practice-notes index, with fixed column headers. If a header does not match, the plan stops and asks.
- Today's date, so a practice note due for review can be marked. If it is missing, the plan asks for it before it starts.
- Optionally, research already done (notes, authorities found, a search log) and the firm's list of approved research sources.
What comes out
One plan, marked as a draft for the named lawyer:
- The question and its sub-questions, in counsel's words, with any point to settle with the partner first.
- The facts, each quoted and located, set against the sub-questions by shared words, and a list of what is not stated.
- Read first: the firm's own notes that share words with the question, those past the firm's review age marked for their owner.
- Kinds of source and search terms for each sub-question, every word traced to the inputs. Which courts bind and what weight a source carries are left to the lawyer.
- From the research supplied: each item copied exactly, marked "to be verified by the lawyer", with what its reference lacks. Any case, statute or rule named elsewhere in the inputs, or added later in the conversation, is listed the same way and marked as supplied outside the research notes, and what it says a case held stays the supplier's words.
- Gaps, a lawyer-to-confirm list and a check that no authority appears beyond the inputs.
The person who ran it reads the plan against the inputs and gives it to the researching lawyer, who confirms it with the partner and does the research.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. Quillfeather & Rook LLP, its people, its client Ottermill Tile Co., Fallowmere Ceramics Ltd, Pellwick Auction Rooms, the States of Eastmere and Wendlemoor, the Superior Court of Eastmere, and every statute, case, service and note named below are invented. The research notes deliberately contain an uncertain statute reference, an incomplete case reference and a vague mention of a case, to show how the workflow template handles them. None of them is real, and none may be relied on.
The associate's six inputs come first, in full, then what the workflow template prepares.
Input 1: the request
Sent by Tomas Reyes-Lund, associate, on Wednesday 11 November 2026.
Today is Wednesday 11 November 2026.
Please prepare the research plan for me on Odile's question below.
Matter 2026-0412, Ottermill Tile Co. Practice area: Commercial.
Attached: Odile's email, the intake note, our practice-notes index export,
my notes from a first look yesterday, and our approved research sources.
Honestly, if you can just give me the leading case on "sold as seen", that
would save me a day.
Input 2: the partner's email
From: Odile Marsh, partner
To: Tomas Reyes-Lund, associate
Sent: Tuesday 10 November 2026
Subject: Ottermill / kiln: research before Friday's call
Tomas, a new one for you. Matter 2026-0412, Ottermill Tile Co., commercial.
Ottermill bought a used electric kiln for $18,400 at a Pellwick Auction
Rooms sale on 2 September 2026. The seller was Fallowmere Ceramics Ltd. The
online listing said "fully serviced 2025". The kiln failed on 29 September
and Ottermill's engineer says the heating elements were never replaced.
Fallowmere says the auction terms say goods are "sold as seen" and refuses
to refund.
My question: can Ottermill get the $18,400 back from Fallowmere, or does the
"sold as seen" line in the auction terms stop that? And do we need to bring
Pellwick in as well?
If it comes to proceedings we would be in the Superior Court of Eastmere, at
trial level. I'd like the research done before Friday's call with the client.
Input 3: the intake note
Intake note · matter 2026-0412 · Ottermill Tile Co.
Taken by Priya Calder, paralegal, 4 November 2026
1. Bought kiln, lot 37, Pellwick Auction Rooms online sale, 2 Sept 2026.
Price $18,400 plus buyer's premium (amount not given).
2. Listing text (client's screenshot, saved to matter file): "Electric kiln,
2016, fully serviced 2025, collection only."
3. Client says he did not read the auction terms before bidding; he ticked a
box to accept them when registering.
4. Kiln failed 29 Sept 2026. Client's engineer's report dated 6 Oct 2026,
not yet sent to us.
5. Client emailed Fallowmere on 1 Oct 2026 asking for a refund. Fallowmere
replied on 3 Oct 2026: "sold as seen, no refunds".
Input 4: the practice-notes index export
Document ID,Title,Practice area,Jurisdiction,Date,Owner,Last reviewed
PN-014,"Equipment sales: ""sold as seen"" and similar wording",Commercial,Eastmere,2024-05-02,Bea Fenwick,2026-02-11
PN-022,Auction sales: who is a party to the sale,Commercial,Eastmere,2021-09-10,Bea Fenwick,2022-01-10
PR-031,Memo: refund of the price for faulty machinery (closed matter 2023-0177),Commercial,Eastmere,2023-11-20,Odile Marsh,
PN-040,Consumer returns: shop policies,Consumer,Eastmere,2025-03-03,Bea Fenwick,2025-03-03
PN-051,Equipment leasing: lessee charges,Commercial,Eastmere,2025-06-18,Bea Fenwick,2025-06-18
PN-063,Auction sales: buyer's premium and fees,Commercial,Wendlemoor,2024-09-01,Bea Fenwick,2025-09-01
Input 5: the associate's first-look notes
Ottermill kiln: first look. TRL, 10 November 2026
1. Eastmere Goods Trading Act 2004, s. 31: implied term about quality? From
memory, check.
2. Thrushcombe v. Wexlowe Plant Hire [2019] ECA 44: "as seen" wording; I think
it held the clause doesn't cover what the listing said. Found via
footnote 6 of PN-014. Not read yet.
3. Marrowgate auction case (2021?): auctioneer liable along with seller?
Mentioned at a seminar. No citation.
Searches run, Case-law service B:
4. "sold as seen" AND auction AND Eastmere: 3 results, not read.
5. auctioneer AND liable: 0 results.
Input 6: the firm's research-sources list
Research sources approved for commercial work
Approved by Odile Marsh, partner, 1 September 2026
Legislation: Eastmere Statutes Online (the state's official site)
Court decisions: Case-law service B (firm subscription)
Court rules: Superior Court of Eastmere rules page
Commentary: Eastmere Commercial Practice (firm library, loose-leaf)
What the workflow template prepares
A short note to the associate, then the plan.
Tomas, the draft research plan is below. No stop applied and nothing is marked NOT READY. You asked for the leading case on "sold as seen"; the line I gave is: "That is for Tomas Reyes-Lund to find and judge. This plan names no case, statute or rule from memory. See sections 6 and 7." Gaps in one line: SQ1 has no research item; R4 results not read; R5 no results; R1 to R3 marked uncertain; R2 and R3 incomplete; NS1 to NS7 not stated.
Still to do, by people: read the plan against the inputs and give it to the researching lawyer, here you. You then confirm the sub-questions and N1 with Odile Marsh, choose and run the searches, and verify every item at source. I have searched nothing and sent nothing.
DRAFT RESEARCH PLAN · FOR Tomas Reyes-Lund TO CONFIRM
LEADS, NOT AUTHORITIES.
This plan gives no legal advice. It decides nothing about legal meaning,
merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines. It sends, files, signs
and calendars nothing, and nothing has been searched.
No case, statute or rule is named from memory. Every one below is quoted
from the inputs at the place cited and is to be verified by the lawyer.
Matter: 2026-0412, Ottermill Tile Co. Practice area: Commercial
Question from: Odile Marsh, Tuesday 10 November 2026
Prepared for: Tomas Reyes-Lund
Research wanted: "before Friday's call with the client" (email, para. 4)
Jurisdiction and court: "the Superior Court of Eastmere, at trial level"
(email, para. 4)
1. COUNSEL'S QUESTION
"can Ottermill get the $18,400 back from Fallowmere, or does the "sold as
seen" line in the auction terms stop that? And do we need to bring Pellwick
in as well?" (email, para. 3)
2. SUB-QUESTIONS
SQ1. Can Ottermill get the $18,400 back from Fallowmere?
From: "can Ottermill get the $18,400 back from Fallowmere"
SQ2. Or does the "sold as seen" line in the auction terms stop that [SQ1]?
From: "or does the "sold as seen" line in the auction terms stop that?"
"that" stands for SQ1; the number is added in brackets.
SQ3. And do we need to bring Pellwick in as well?
From: "And do we need to bring Pellwick in as well?"
Narrowing, to confirm with Odile Marsh:
N1. What does "bring Pellwick in" (email, para. 3) refer to? The inputs
do not say.
3. FACTS
F1. "Ottermill bought a used electric kiln for $18,400 at a Pellwick Auction
Rooms sale on 2 September 2026." (email, para. 2)
F2. "The seller was Fallowmere Ceramics Ltd." (email, para. 2)
F3. "The online listing said "fully serviced 2025"." (email, para. 2)
F4. "The kiln failed on 29 September and Ottermill's engineer says the
heating elements were never replaced." (email, para. 2)
F5. "Fallowmere says the auction terms say goods are "sold as seen" and
refuses to refund." (email, para. 2)
F6. "Bought kiln, lot 37, Pellwick Auction Rooms online sale, 2 Sept 2026."
(intake note, item 1)
F7. "Price $18,400 plus buyer's premium (amount not given)." (intake note,
item 1)
F8. "Listing text (client's screenshot, saved to matter file): "Electric
kiln, 2016, fully serviced 2025, collection only."" (intake note, item 2)
F9. "Client says he did not read the auction terms before bidding; he
ticked a box to accept them when registering." (intake note, item 3)
F10. "Kiln failed 29 Sept 2026." (intake note, item 4)
F11. "Client's engineer's report dated 6 Oct 2026, not yet sent to us."
(intake note, item 4)
F12. "Client emailed Fallowmere on 1 Oct 2026 asking for a refund." (intake
note, item 5)
F13. "Fallowmere replied on 3 Oct 2026: "sold as seen, no refunds"." (intake
note, item 5)
Set against sub-questions by shared words:
SQ1: F1, F2, F5, F7, F12, F13 (shares: $18,400, Fallowmere)
SQ2: F1, F5, F6, F9, F13 (shares: sold, seen, auction, terms)
SQ3: F1, F5, F6, F9 (shares: Pellwick, auction, rooms)
Not tied to a sub-question by its wording: F3, F4, F8, F10, F11
Not stated:
NS1. The auction terms: mentioned, not supplied (F5, F9; SQ1, SQ2, SQ3)
NS2. The online listing: mentioned, not supplied (F3, F8; not tied)
NS3. The client's screenshot of the listing, "saved to matter file":
mentioned, not supplied (F8; not tied)
NS4. The engineer's report dated 6 Oct 2026: "not yet sent to us" (F11;
not tied)
NS5. The buyer's premium: "amount not given" (F7; SQ1)
NS6. The client's email to Fallowmere of 1 Oct 2026: mentioned, not
supplied (F12; SQ1)
NS7. Fallowmere's reply of 3 Oct 2026: mentioned, not supplied (F13; SQ1,
SQ2)
4. READ FIRST: THE FIRM'S OWN NOTES
PN-014 "Equipment sales: "sold as seen" and similar wording" · Bea Fenwick
· last reviewed 2026-02-11
Shares: sales, sold, seen
PN-022 "Auction sales: who is a party to the sale" · Bea Fenwick · last
reviewed 2022-01-10
Shares: auction, sale Review: ask Bea Fenwick whether it is current
PR-031 "Memo: refund of the price for faulty machinery (closed matter
2023-0177)" · Odile Marsh · last reviewed blank
Shares: refund, price Review: ask Odile Marsh whether it is current
Also in this practice area: PN-051
Not listed: 2 rows (1 another practice area, 1 another jurisdiction)
5. KINDS OF SOURCE TO SEARCH
- The firm's own notes (section 4): SQ1, SQ2, SQ3
- Enacted law of Eastmere · Eastmere Statutes Online (the state's official
site): SQ1, SQ2, SQ3
- Court decisions in Eastmere · Case-law service B (firm subscription):
SQ1, SQ2, SQ3. Which courts' decisions bind the stated court is for the
lawyer.
- Court rules of the Superior Court of Eastmere · Superior Court of
Eastmere rules page: SQ3 (uses the words "bring ... in", on the step
list; whether a step in proceedings is meant is for the lawyer)
- Commentary · Eastmere Commercial Practice (firm library, loose-leaf):
SQ1, SQ2, SQ3
What weight any source carries is for the lawyer.
6. SEARCH TERMS
SQ1
(refund OR refunded) AND price AND faulty AND (machinery OR equipment)
refund: F5, F12, PR-031 title; refunded: a form of refund; price: F7,
PR-031 title; faulty, machinery: PR-031 title; equipment: PN-014 title
(refund OR refunds) AND seller AND (auction OR auctioneer)
refund: F5, F12; refunds: F13; seller: F2; auction: F1, F5;
auctioneer: a form of auction
SQ2
"sold as seen" AND auction AND terms
"sold as seen": SQ2, F5, F13, PN-014 title; auction, terms: SQ2, F5, F9
"sold as seen" AND (equipment OR machinery) AND (sale OR sales)
equipment, sales: PN-014 title; machinery: PR-031 title; sale: F1, F6
"auction terms" AND (accept OR accepted) AND (registering OR bidding)
"auction terms": SQ2, F5, F9; accept, registering, bidding: F9;
accepted: a form of accept
SQ3
(auction OR auctioneer) AND party AND (sale OR sales)
auction: F1, F6, PN-022 title; auctioneer: a form of auction; party,
sales: PN-022 title; sale: F1, F6, PN-022 title
"auction rooms" AND (sold OR bought) AND terms
"auction rooms": F1, F6; sold: F5; bought: F1; terms: F5, F9
7. FROM THE RESEARCH SUPPLIED · TO BE VERIFIED BY THE LAWYER
R1. "Eastmere Goods Trading Act 2004, s. 31: implied term about quality?
From memory, check." (notes, item 1)
SQ2 (shares: term).
To be verified by the lawyer.
Marked uncertain in the notes: "?", "From memory, check."
R2. "Thrushcombe v. Wexlowe Plant Hire [2019] ECA 44: "as seen" wording; I
think it held the clause doesn't cover what the listing said. Found via
footnote 6 of PN-014. Not read yet." (notes, item 2)
SQ2 (shares: seen).
To be verified by the lawyer. Incomplete: lacks a pinpoint.
Marked uncertain in the notes: "I think", "Not read yet."
What it held is in the words supplied; the plan does not adopt them.
R3. "Marrowgate auction case (2021?): auctioneer liable along with seller?
Mentioned at a seminar. No citation." (notes, item 3)
SQ2, SQ3 (shares: auction, auctioneer).
To be verified by the lawyer. Incomplete: lacks a full name, a court or
source and a pinpoint.
Marked uncertain in the notes: "(2021?)", "seller?"
R4. ""sold as seen" AND auction AND Eastmere: 3 results, not read." (notes,
item 4, under "Searches run, Case-law service B")
SQ2 (shares: sold, seen, auction); SQ3 (shares: auction).
To be verified by the lawyer.
Marked uncertain in the notes: "not read"
R5. "auctioneer AND liable: 0 results." (notes, item 5, under "Searches
run, Case-law service B")
SQ2, SQ3 (shares: auctioneer).
To be verified by the lawyer.
8. GAPS
- SQ1 has no item of research set against it (SQ1)
- 3 results recorded as not read (R4)
- 0 results (R5)
- Marked uncertain in the notes (R1, R2, R3)
- Incomplete: R2 lacks a pinpoint; R3 lacks a full name, a court or source
and a pinpoint (R2, R3)
- Not stated: 7 items (NS1 to NS7)
9. LAWYER TO CONFIRM
[ ] SQ1 to SQ3 are the question as asked. Confirm or correct: ____
[ ] N1. What "bring Pellwick in" refers to. Answer: ____
[ ] Jurisdiction and court as stated. Confirm: ____
[ ] Facts not tied: F3, F4, F8, F10, F11. Place them, or leave out. ____
[ ] NS1 to NS7: who obtains each. ____
[ ] Notes marked for review: PN-022 (Bea Fenwick). Current? ____
[ ] Notes marked for review: PR-031 (Odile Marsh). Current? ____
[ ] R1, a reference: found and verified at source. ____
[ ] R2, a reference: found and verified at source. ____
[ ] R3, a reference: found and verified at source. ____
[ ] R4, a search: rerun, or results read, by: ____
[ ] R5, a search: rerun, or results read, by: ____
[ ] Searches chosen and run by: ____
10. CHECK
- Inputs read: the request, with today's date (Wednesday 11 November
2026); the partner's email; the intake note; the practice-notes index
(6 rows); the first-look notes (5 items); the research-sources list.
Index headers: match.
- Sub-questions: 3. Facts: 13; not stated: 7. Notes listed: 3 of 6 rows.
Research items: 5, each marked to be verified by the lawyer.
- No case, statute, rule or court decision appears in this plan unless it
appears in the inputs at the place cited, and each one is listed in
section 7, to be verified by the lawyer.
- No legal period was counted; the only date arithmetic is the review age
of the firm's notes. Dates are copied as written.
- Declined: "if you can just give me the leading case on "sold as seen"":
for Tomas Reyes-Lund.
Confirmed by Tomas Reyes-Lund: ____________ Date: ________
Until this line is signed, this is a draft.
Two lines are worth noticing. The listing, the failed kiln and the engineer's report (F3, F4, F8, F10, F11) are tied to no sub-question, because they share no words with the question as Odile Marsh wrote it. The plan does not decide that they matter; it hands them to the lawyer to place. And R1 to R3 appear exactly as the associate wrote them, gaps and question marks included. The plan does not complete the Thrushcombe reference, guess the Marrowgate case or say what either decided; where the notes say what a case held, the plan marks those words as the notes', not its own.
Tomas Reyes-Lund confirms the sub-questions with Odile Marsh and asks Bea Fenwick and Odile Marsh whether PN-022 and PR-031 are current. He decides who obtains each item not stated, NS1 to NS7, then chooses his searches and finds and verifies every authority himself.
Where it fits
- Legal and contracts: the preparation before research, done the same careful way every time, with the lawyer doing the lawyering.
- Law firms, where partners hand questions to associates daily and a confident wrong citation is the most expensive kind of mistake.
- Established businesses, where the firm's notes and precedents are its best asset and too often sit unread.
- Growth & scaling, when new associates arrive faster than partners can walk each one through where to start.
When the work is summarising documents already gathered for an executive, research summary brief is the right workflow template. Once the research turns into work that needs a partner's sign-off, outgoing work sign-off log tracks it. Dates in an order belong to court-order deadline notice preparation.
What has to change for your company
Your practice-notes index is the heart of it: an export with the standard column headers, a knowledge owner for each note, and a review date the plan can read. Decide how old a note may be before it is marked for review, how many sub-questions a request may hold before it goes back to the partner, and which research sources a lawyer has approved for each kind of source. Decide who may run it, where confirmed plans are kept and who passes them on.
We sit with the associates who do the research and the partner who owns the practice notes, write down how your firm really starts a research question, and set it up in the AI product the firm has approved: ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini, with web search switched off for this workflow. Your firm keeps control of how the work gets done.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this workflow template, drawing on a clinic research starter Anthropic publishes under the Apache 2.0 licence, and left out that method's list of likely statutes: this plan proposes none. It was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer. A separate review of the legal boundary then found that the earlier version let a few sentences through that read as the plan's own view, and that its replies to pressure questions said more than they should; the instructions were tightened the same day. It was tried on its invented example in Claude on 11 November 2026, with five pressure tests, on the tightened instructions, and the record of that run, which says what the earlier run got wrong, is published with it. It has not yet been tested in a client environment. 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 questions whose research is done and comparing: every fact located, every useful note listed, every search term traceable, every reference copied exactly, no authority beyond the inputs. Include a request for "the leading case", an incomplete citation and a question with no jurisdiction. 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
- The searches to run
- Which authorities to find and verify
- Whether the scope is confirmed with the partner
- Which courts bind and what weight a source carries
It does not
- Gives no legal advice
- Decides nothing about meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines
- Sends, files, signs and calendars nothing
- Names no case, statute or rule from memory
- Does not answer the research question
- Infers no jurisdiction or court
Questions people ask
Who is it for?
An associate, or a paralegal for a named lawyer, starts it when a partner or the responsible attorney hands over a research question.
What do I need to supply?
The request, the facts as they stand, the jurisdiction and court level as the partner stated them, the practice-notes index export and today's date. Research already done is optional.
What does it not do?
It gives no legal advice and names no case, statute or rule from memory. The researching lawyer decides and verifies, and nothing is sent, filed, signed or calendared by it.
What do I get?
One plan, marked as a draft for the named lawyer: the question and its sub-questions, the facts, the firm's notes to read first, kinds of source and search terms, and gaps.
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 and has not yet been tested in a client environment.
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: