Traceable legal research

How do you move from a legal question to a note in which every conclusion can be verified?

1250 € per session, excl. VAT

In short

In a half-day session of 3 hours you develop an approach to AI-assisted legal research: scoping, queries, source selection, verification and synthesis. You produce a short briefing note with an accompanying evidence register, distinguishing between substantiated conclusions, hypotheses and points requiring legal validation.

Why this training?

A plausible legal answer does not constitute reliable research. A non-existent reference, an outdated version or a ruling taken out of context can distort the analysis, even when the writing appears convincing. AI helps break down a question, suggest queries and organise the information collected. However, the value of the work rests on consulting sources, their relevance and the traceability of the reasoning. Running case study: The fictitious company « Estrelune Agencement » is considering terminating a maintenance contract following several disputed service visits. Using contract extracts and a fictitious chronology, participants prepare research into French law to inform the questions to be submitted to the legal department, without deciding on termination. Transfer to the workplace: Reuse the source register for a new anonymised question and have the note reviewed by a qualified professional. Compare documentary coverage, invalid references and remaining caveats before any operational use.

Objectives of this training

  • Define the facts, jurisdiction, period and questions of law.
  • Develop documentary research queries with AI assistance.
  • Verify the existence, version and scope of the selected references.
  • Write a synthesis linking each conclusion to its sources.
  • Measure coverage of the questions and flag uncertainties.

Who is it for and what are the prerequisites?

Roles and tasks concerned

  • Legal professionals and legal assistants carrying out documentary research.
  • Compliance officers preparing files for legal validation.

Prior skills

  • Have previously used generative AI for simple requests.
  • Understand the distinctions between normative texts, case law and legal commentary.

What you will work on

  1. Define the legal problem

    Objective: Turn an imprecise request into documentary research questions. Established facts, missing information, provisional legal classification, territory and reference date; distinction between research and advice.

  2. Build the documentary research pathway

    Objective: Organise queries and select relevant sources. Keywords, legal synonyms, date filters; priority given to primary sources and the role of commentaries.

  3. Check references and scope

    Objective: Exclude dubious citations and contextualise the evidence. Existence of references, applicable versions, exact extracts, context of rulings and differences in interpretation.

  4. Synthesise and measure reliability

    Objective: Produce a usable note without concealing its limitations. Question-analysis-sources-caveats structure; documentary coverage, contradictions and validation workflow.

What you take away

  • Scoping sheet and legal question tree.
  • Query log and register of verified sources.
  • Short research note with references and caveats.
  • Completed quality control checklist.

Method and assessment

  • Short instructional inputs followed by immediate practice on the running case study.
  • Individual work followed by work in pairs, with peer review of the outputs.
  • Facilitated group discussion: what works, what needs correcting and what remains a human decision.
  • Preparation: Have access to the tools authorised by the organisation and to accessible documentary resources. Prepare only fictitious or anonymised documents; no confidential contract will be sent to AI.

Observable criteria: The scoping specifies the missing facts, relevant territory and period. ; Each selected reference includes an identifier or link, a consultation date and a useful passage. ; Each substantive conclusion refers to a consulted source whose version and scope have been checked. ; The checklist calculates the proportion of questions covered and counts unverified references. ; Contradictions and points requiring professional validation are explicitly flagged..

Frequently asked questions

Can AI serve as a legal source?

No. Its suggestions guide the research; the references must be located and consulted.

What should you do without access to a specialist database?

Use accessible public resources and flag limitations in coverage, without claiming to be exhaustive.

Can the note be used immediately?

It must be validated by a qualified professional before operational use; no sensitive decision is automated.

How should you handle a rule whose applicability remains uncertain?

Document the source and the uncertainty, then state: « to be checked with your legal department ».

Last updated: