Finding Illinois Law Finding Haystacks: Context in Legal Research | By Thomas Keefe A necessary first step in legal research is to identify what an answer might look like and where one might find it – to create context. Today many researchers raised on the Internet use computers to circumvent that step. Here's why that's a mistake. Any lawyer who learned law in books will almost certainly agree that computers have corrupted legal research. The problem is not that computers are inappropriate for legal research. Indeed, as I have mentioned before, I believe that computers serve an essential role in the process of legal research. The problem is that many researchers misunderstand the role of computers as a research tool. Legal research is a process, i.e., an organized system of steps. One of the first steps in the process of legal research is to identify what an answer might look like and where one might find it – to create context. Today many researchers, especially those raised on computers, use computers to circumvent that step. They end up trying to find a needle in a haystack without first locating the right haystack.1 Computer-assisted search tools are popular because they are fast, powerful, and easy to use. But they are dangerous in that they allow researchers to proceed without thinking. The ubiquity of computer-assisted research, especially the rise of all-purpose search engines like Google, has led many to believe that an answer is only a few keystrokes away. Computers, and in terms of searching, search engines, are expected to do all the work. We have been foolishly led to believe that all we need to do is enter keywords and the computer software will spit back the answer. Why we need context This danger is especially apparent in legal research. Legal research is different from typical Internet research in that legal research is based upon concepts, and those concepts are inter-related. Using a search engine to locate a map, airline tickets, or a long lost friend is quite different than using a search engine to locate information pertaining to chattel or offensive collateral estoppel. The advantage of using computers is that free-text searching can identify specific fact patterns. The disadvantage is that many fact patterns suggest but do not specifically refer to the underlying legal concepts that a court addresses in its decision. A court may refer to sale of a dog or a car or a computer but never refer to it as chattel.2 Similarly, one looking for material on whether an argument has been waived might be disheartened to later find out that a client is in fact estopped from pleading it: related concept, unrelated words. As I have said before, computer-assisted searching is an essential step at the end of the research process to ensure accurate, thorough, and timely results. Employing both a conceptual search and a keyword search to ensure the best legal research results is the equivalent of using both stocks and bonds to ensure the best investment results. But again, one cannot attempt to locate the proverbial needle without having found the correct haystack. Thus it is essential to have context first. As one legal research text admonishes: "[frequently] the worst place to start your research is to go looking for a case. Get some context first. Discover the parameters of the problem. Know your turf."3 I think for many this admonishment is worth remembering. "Knowing one's turf" involves seeking some sort of hierarchically organized arrangement of legal information like a treatise, digest, or encyclopedia. These classification systems provide context by organizing related ideas from broad to narrow. For example, predatory pricing is a subset of legal concepts relating to monopolies, just as monopolies is a subset of concepts pertaining to antitrust or trade regulation issues. Historical support for context and classification If context were not important in legal research, one might predict that the rise of computers would have made classification schemes like West's "Topic and Key Number System" begin to disappear. In fact, as I see it, the opposite is true.4 In the past 10 years, LexisNexis (Lexis) and Westlaw have introduced products that combine classification schemes and key-word searching. These new products provide insight into the value of context and an alternative for the busy searcher who needs to find a haystack immediately. Harken back to a mere decade ago when Internet technology and "hyperlinking" began to permeate the legal research world. Back then, Westlaw had a natural advantage over Lexis in that it had the classification system – the Topic and Keynumber System –already in place. Thus, capitalizing on hyperlinks and Internet technology, West was able to integrate its content and subject system. At that time Lexis still consisted only of libraries and files. After an apparent loss in market share, Lexis countered in 1999 by launching the Lexis.com research system that had as its backbone a new classification scheme known as "core concepts." Lexis also upped the ante by rolling out "Search Advisor," a new research tool that allowed a researcher to navigate through a newly created classification system to arrive at a set of primary and secondary sources pertaining to a particular legal concept. By incorporating a classification scheme, Search Advisor enabled a searcher to identify the proper haystack before executing a free-text or natural language search on selected materials. Not to be outdone, West immediately countered with a re-tooled version of its Topic and Key Number System called KeySearch. This new product combined a simplified version of the Topic and Key Number System with predetermined queries written by West editors. In short, once a researcher determined the proper context for a search, the search would run itself. What researchers wanted was a classification scheme that was accessible to the average researcher – not something perplexing like print digests. Search Advisor and KeySearch represent a response to that recognized need. I have mixed feelings about recommending them, because I will always believe that one should remain in control of the research process as much as possible. However, they may provide a happy medium for busy practitioners who recognize the need for context but do not have the time or the research skills to provide it for themselves. Were context not of fundamental importance in legal research, I dare say that none of these innovations would have occurred. Conclusion Even today in a world dominated by Google and quick fixes, there are times when taking the time to navigate through a classification scheme to an answer or solution is simply a better alternative than trying to search for it directly. Legal research provides a perfect example. Though technology has changed, the need for context has not. So next time you find yourself looking for a needle, think about the haystack first. • 1.   Scott P. Stolley, Shortcomings of Technology: The Corruption of Legal Research, For the Defense, v. no. 4 at 39, 40 (April 2004), citing Mark Herrmann, From the Partner, Litigation at 8, 64 (Fall 1998). 2.   Jay Schuck, Class Discussion: Dan Dabney reflects on classification of the law, Law Librarians in the New Millenium, v. 3 no. 5 at 4 (2001). 3.   Robert C. Berring and Elizabeth A. Edinger, Legal Research Survival Manual, 58 (West Group 2002). 4.   Granted, the use and purchase of print sets of West's digests has decreased, but that is a separate point. Thomas Keefe is Computer Services Reference Librarian at The John Marshall Law School.