Though research is a skill often associated with law school and the early years of a new lawyer’s career, the reality is that research is one of the most essential skills in a lawyer's repertoire—regardless of age, practice area, or position. 

Understanding the research tools that are available and employing them carefully, creatively and efficiently can be the difference between success and failure at trial, between a satisfied and a disgruntled client, or ultimately between a flourishing and a struggling practice.

Research Basics

In the 2014 Legal Technology Survey Report, respondents on average reported spending nearly a fifth of their working hours (19%) conducting legal research. While lawyers of all experience levels dedicated significant time to research, as one might expect, the youngest lawyers led the way. Lawyers with less than ten years in practice spent nearly a third of their working hours (28%) conducting research.

Beyond age, the nature of a lawyers’ practice had some bearing on the amount of time spent conducting research.  While solo practitioners spent 23% of their time researching, lawyers at the largest law firms dedicated just 17%.  Among practice areas, general practitioners spent the most time on research at 25%, and when examining roles in firms, associates spent 26% of their time researching compared to just 16% for partners.

Outside of solo practitioners, the 2014 Survey shows that few lawyers handle all of their own research.  At the largest firms in particular, 47% of respondents reported regularly handing off research to other lawyers at the firm and 24% reported doing so at least occasionally.  Large firm lawyers also had the benefit of firm libraries, with fully 57% reporting that they regularly or occasionally handed research to the librarians.

Finally, legal research isn’t a task confined to the office or the firm library. Approximately 10% of respondents to the Survey reported conducting research in the courtroom at least occasionally. Nearly a third (32%) conducted research at home regularly and another 39% reported doing so at least occasionally.

Starting a Research Project

Getting started with a new research project can be daunting. The results of the 2014 Survey show a range of starting points depending on a lawyers setting. Overall, 51% of lawyers start a new research project by turning to a free rather than fee-based research tool. For reasons we’ll address shortly, this likely has more to do with convenience and speed than cost. That is, lawyers turn to free tools like Google because they provide a very quick general search that can help guide and inform subsequent research.

Broken out by firm size, the numbers are somewhat hard to explain. Lawyers at the largest firms of 500+ attorneys are the most likely (74%) to turn to free resources first, while lawyers at firms between two and 99 lawyers are actually more likely to turn to fee-based tools first. Drop down to solo practitioners and they’re once again (58%) more likely to turn to free research first. Looking at practice area, litigators and personal injury lawyers are the most likely to turn to fee-based resources first, perhaps because the issues they’re likely to research aren’t well addressed in free research databases or because the signal-to-noise ratio is poor on a general tool like Google.

The data also show that print isn’t dead, at least for lawyers practicing estates and trusts. At 13%, they were the most likely to report turning to print materials first when starting a research project. They were also the most likely to report regularly using print materials in general at 55%. As one might expect, reliance on print was also closely tied to a lawyer’s years in practice. Just 5% of lawyers in practice less than 10 years turned to print first compared to 17% of lawyers in practice more than 30 years.

Tools and Satisfaction

Lawyers have a wide range of tools available for legal research, but they can generally be broken down by those that are free and those that are in some way fee-based. 

In 2014, the most frequently used free research tool at 38% was, unsurprisingly, Google.  That was considerably less the case for solo practitioners (26%) than the largest firm practitioners (47%). Solos’ preferred free research tool was a state bar association offering (likely Casemaker or Fastcase) at 36%. Such tools were considerably less popular at the largest firms where just 6% of respondents chose them.

On the fee-based tool front, Westlaw products seem to have the edge. When asked to name the fee-based online service they used most often, 33% named WestlawNext followed by 19% for Westlaw. Lexis was third at 19% and Lexis Advance followed in fourth at 9%. No other research tool managed more than 4%. 

Though a West product was first in every firm size, the margin of difference was closest among solo practitioners. For solos, 24% named WestlawNext followed closely by Lexis at 21%.

Regardless of brand, the results showed very clearly that while lawyers may turn to free research tools first, they’re ultimately far more satisfied with fee-based tools. When asked to rate their satisfaction with various features of research tools, the following reported being “very satisfied” with the features of both free and fee-based tools:

Costs

Cost is undoubtedly a major factor in lawyers’ choice of research tools. Among the satisfaction questions discussed above, “cost” was the feature where respondents were least likely (14%) to say they were “very satisfied.” 

According to the 2014 Survey, the most common fee structure for fee-based tools was a negotiated flat fee at 66%. Interestingly, 19% overall including 40% at the largest firms simply didn’t know how their legal research was charged. Given that some research services or some features within research tools can be charged by the query, that lack of knowledge is alarming. 

When it comes to recovering those fees, responses were varied. While 30% of respondents reported that their firms bill clients at cost for research, a similar 26% reported that they don’t bill clients for research at all.  Another 20% reported that they incorporate their research costs into the lawyers’ hourly rate. 

General Awareness

Lawyers’ research extends beyond pure legal research. Whether they’re staying abreast of technology trends or tracking news relevant to their practice area, lawyers rely on a variety of tools to maintain their general news awareness.

In 2014, nearly a quarter (24%) of respondents report using email discussion lists daily. A quarter of respondents also report relying on email newsletters each day, while 14% turn to blogs and 8% to online message boards.

Rich media is less commonly used, with 4% using online video daily and 2% using podcasts. Interestingly, though the daily use of podcasts is quite low at 2%, the occasional use is surprisingly high at 34%. 

Knowledge Management

Research professionals, particularly law librarians, have been advocating knowledge management tools and processes for years. Rather than endlessly reinventing the wheel by repeating the same research, knowledge management allows firms to save, organize, and re-use their previous work. 

As useful as knowledge management may be, only 11% of respondents in 2014 reported that their firms have a knowledge management initiative. That percentage is higher at the largest firms (42%), but it still seems quite low. When such initiatives exist, they’re usually managed through the Chief Information Officer or the Chief Knowledge Officer. 

But while formal knowledge management initiatives may be rare, the reassuring news is that overall 88% of firms including 96% of the largest firms do maintain some form of searchable knowledge management system for internal documents. 

The Future of Legal Research

Though the data available in the 2014 Legal Technology Survey Reportregarding legal research is valuable and instructive, it’s admittedly not an area that’s likely to drive great excitement. The path of legal research technology has been more one of evolution than revolution, where other areas—particularly mobile technology, cloud, and communication— have seen exciting and sometimes worrisome lurches forward.

And yet, as discussed at the beginning, legal research accounts for around a fifth of the average lawyer’s time.  It’s absolutely essential to the practice and even minor changes in the underlying technology can have major repercussions for practicing lawyers.

With that in mind, here are a few issues lawyers should be considering with regard to the future of legal research.

Changing Demographics

The demographics of the profession are changing.  Law school enrollment has been trending steadily down, and firms seem to be relying more on experienced lateral transfers than hiring newly admitted attorneys. Over time, this may mean a shrinking pool of low-experience associates at larger firms. And yet, as the data show, those low-experience associates tend to be legal research workhorses.

If that trend is indeed a reality, experienced lawyers should expect to handle more of their research themselves.  That has direct consequences for time and project management, and may mean firms need to seriously invest in ongoing legal research training for their attorneys. 

On the vendor side, it may also mean that the developers of legal research tools will need to rely less on extensive academic legal research education programs and concentrate more on developing solid educational resources and support for mid-career attorneys. 

Legal Research Integration

Legal research tools are sometimes described as the first form of truly legal cloud computing. Between the era of research in books and research via the web, there was a brief interim period when legal research relied on locally installed software, CD-ROMs full of research material, and direct dial up to research databases. That data and functionality now lives in the cloud and is accessed via a web browser in much the same way that other traditional tools, like case management software or document assembly, are now often based in the cloud.

One of the advantages of cloud-based legal research is the ability to link it to other cloud-based tools. Already, several case management tools feature integration with legal research tools, including Thomson’s Firm Central and WestlawNext, and Clio with Fastcase. These integrations are likely just the first step in long path of increasingly integrated web-based tools for lawyers.

Imagine a document assembly tool that integrates with the online form libraries of a major research provider.  A lawyer could navigate through those libraries picking and choosing appropriate clauses and, with a few clicks, generate a customized contract in a fraction of the time it would have taken to download and edit a form manually. Tie the same tools into the firm’s case management tool and it’s possible the form could also draw in the client’s relevant information—address, business name, etc.—and give you a nearly finished product in a matter of minutes rather than hours.

All of this is to say: expect legal research to become integrated into your other tools.

Knowledge Management’s Killer App

It’s easy to see the appeal of knowledge management. Why waste time repeating the same work over and over again?  If a firm’s intellectual output could truly be harnessed, the firm could be vastly more efficient. And yet despite its appeal, knowledge management remains unevenly implemented and utilized. For firms with high output the challenge of organizing and harnessing it all can seem insurmountable. For other firms, knowledge management efforts end in frustration when the firm’s attorneys fail to follow protocols and procedures and the firm’s output isn’t accurately captured or used.

This combination of obvious utility and frustrating reality seems to be a perfect setup for a killer app. That is, the innovation that finally solves the riddle of making knowledge management simple and accessible for average attorneys in much the same way that iMovie brought video editing to the masses or Dropbox made online file sharing so simple.

It’s possible that law firms are simply too complex and the killer app will never come. But if it does, watch out: it’ll be a transformative moment in the way firms handle their information.