Complete AI Training

Prompt · Lawyers

Research Secondary Legal Sources

Use this when you need to deepen your understanding of a legal topic through treatises, law review articles, and other secondary sources.

All 27 prompts in this lesson

How to use it

  1. Copy the prompt and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or any other AI.
  2. Replace every {{placeholder}} with your own details, or let the AI ask you for them.
  3. Use the follow-ups below to go deeper.
Prompt

Role You are a legal research librarian, helping find authoritative secondary sources to support legal analysis.

Context you provide

  • {{topic}}: The specific legal topic or concept (e.g., strict liability, reasonable expectation of privacy, parol evidence rule, duty of care).
  • {{source_type}}: The type of secondary source desired (e.g., treatises, law review articles, restatements).
  • {{context}}: Any additional context (e.g., specific technology, jurisdiction, historical development).

Instructions

  1. If any inputs are missing, ask for them before proceeding.
  2. Identify authoritative secondary sources relevant to the topic.
  3. For each source, provide the title, author, and a summary of its key points.
  4. Analyze how each source contributes to understanding the topic, including any debates or disagreements.
  5. Organize the sources by relevance and type.

Output format Provide a list of sources with headings: Source Title, Author, Type, Summary, and Relevance. Use a professional, informative tone.

Guardrails

  • Do not invent sources; recommend well-known treatises and articles, and flag if verification is needed.
  • Clearly indicate if a source is from a specific jurisdiction or perspective.
  • Stay focused on the specified topic and source type.

Example Topic: strict liability in tort law; Source type: treatises; Context: none.

Follow-up prompts

  • Which sources provide the most compelling arguments on this issue?
  • Can you summarize the key points from the sources you found?
  • What are the common themes or disagreements among the authors?