A useful research request gives a lawyer or research assistant enough structure to investigate the actual issue. LawSensai's public Legal Memo Generator specification separates three required inputs: Legal Issue, Relevant Facts and Jurisdiction.1 You can use that structure to prepare a clear research brief before any entitled execution is considered.
This article teaches that input-review task. It does not describe a verified Agent Hub run, an installed research agent or a completed legal memorandum. Catalog outputs are specifications, not checked authorities.
Open the specific catalog entry
Visit Automation Templates and choose Legal Memo Generator. Read the inputs, stated outputs and guardrails together. The entry lists a legal memorandum and case citations as intended outputs and states that attorney review is required. It is a template for attorney customization.
Do not infer source retrieval or current-law validation from the phrase case citations. A system can produce a citation-shaped string without proving the authority exists or supports the proposition. Installation and execution also have separate account requirements; access to a public description is not an entitlement to run the workflow.
Write an answerable legal issue
Replace a broad request such as “research my contract case” with a defined question. In a fictional training example, a lawyer might ask: “Under the specified jurisdiction's law, what issues must be researched before assessing a disputed renewal notice under a business services agreement?”
State the purpose of the research and the decision it will inform. Identify whether the work is an initial issue list, an internal memorandum or support for a filing. Set the desired depth and exclusions. Do not ask a tool to supply a confident conclusion when the assignment is only to identify unresolved issues.
An effective issue field should contain the question, jurisdictional assumption, procedural context and important limitation. Avoid assuming a disputed fact in the phrasing of the legal issue.
Separate record facts from assumptions
Use a short facts table before writing the Relevant Facts input:
| Category | Fictional example | Treatment in the brief |
|---|---|---|
| Source-supported fact | Agreement says written notice | Cite document and section |
| Disputed fact | Recipient denies receiving email | Mark disputed; retain both accounts |
| Missing material | Referenced schedule absent | State that it is missing |
| Working assumption | Colorado law considered initially | Explain it still needs review |
| Research question | Meaning of the notice provision | Leave for investigation |
Do not present reconstructed dates or AI paraphrases as source facts. If the actual agreement is unavailable, say so. Label fictional training examples as fictional, and use a sanitized task description until the firm's confidentiality review permits real material.
Make jurisdiction a research instruction
Specify the jurisdiction, relevant court or forum if known, and the date through which law should be checked. Identify any jurisdictional uncertainty separately. A contract's choice-of-law clause, an office location and the court hearing a case can raise different questions; do not merge them into a single unsupported assumption.
Ask the researcher to distinguish binding authority from persuasive material and current text from historical versions. When no relevant authority is found, the output should say what was searched and what remains unresolved rather than inventing a case to complete the format.
Add a verification plan before generation
Use this reusable research-brief structure:
Purpose: the decision or work product the research will support.
Legal issue: a focused question without assumed disputed facts.
Relevant facts: source-linked facts, disputes, missing records and assumptions.
Jurisdiction and date: forum, governing-law questions and research cut-off.
Required sources: primary authorities to inspect; secondary sources only as leads.
Verification: case identity, pinpoint text, procedural context, proposition fit and current treatment.
Open issues: questions that must remain unresolved until checked.
Reviewer: lawyer responsible for final analysis and use.
This is an original preparation worksheet, not a claim that the catalog automatically supplies all these checks. Carry it into whichever authorized research process your firm uses.
Review an eventual draft as unverified work
If an entitled workflow later produces text, locate and read each cited authority. Compare quotations and holdings with the original decision, and verify subsequent treatment through appropriate research resources. Keep the authority log separate from the generated prose.
ABA Formal Opinion 512 discusses ethical obligations implicated by generative AI, including competence and review; check the rules governing your own practice.2 Model Rule 3.3 separately addresses candor to tribunals and directly adverse controlling authority.3 Neither a disclaimer nor an automated citation flag replaces those responsibilities.
For confidentiality, use only an approved data path and obtain any required authorization before including matter information. Do not activate agents, connectors or publishing actions merely to get a research draft.
Review the Legal Memo Generator specification and prepare the input brief first. The practical result is a precise assignment and verification plan, whether the eventual research is manual or assisted by software.
LawSensai is not a law firm. Attorneys remain responsible for the research, conclusions and work they deliver or file.
Sources and references
-
LawSensai, Legal Memo Generator specification, checked October 26, 2026. Supports required-input and catalog-output descriptions; does not prove agent execution or citation validation. ↩
-
ABA, Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools, July 29, 2024. General ethical guidance; check applicable adopted rules and court requirements. ↩
-
ABA, Model Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal, especially paragraph (a). Model guidance on statements and authority before a tribunal. ↩