A legal research memo documents the results of a targeted legal research project. Unlike a full office memorandum, which provides a complete IRAC analysis of a legal issue, a research memo focuses on reporting what authorities exist, how they interact, and what gaps remain. It is the document you produce when a supervising attorney asks you to 'find out what the law says about X' rather than 'analyze whether our client has a claim for X.'
The value of a research memo lies in its thoroughness and organization. A partner who assigns you a research project needs confidence that you found all the relevant authorities, not just the first few cases that appeared in a Westlaw search. Your memo should document what you searched for, where you searched, and what you found — so the reader can assess the completeness of your research without duplicating it.
Writing a research memo also requires you to synthesize across authorities rather than simply listing them. A memo that presents cases one by one, without explaining how they relate to each other, forces the reader to do the analytical work that should have been yours. Group authorities by sub-issue, identify the majority and minority rules, note circuit splits, and flag authorities that are particularly persuasive or controlling.
Document Structure
Issue
Define the specific legal question you were asked to research.
Restate the research question in your own words to confirm you understood the assignment correctly. Be specific about jurisdiction, time frame, and any constraints the assigning attorney mentioned. If the scope evolved during your research, note that.
Scope of Research
Document the boundaries and limitations of your research.
Note any jurisdictional limitations, date ranges, or subject matter boundaries. If you were asked to research only federal law, say so. If time constraints prevented you from exhausting a particular line of research, flag that as well. This protects both you and the reader.
Sources Consulted
List the databases, treatises, and search strategies you used.
Be specific: list the databases (Westlaw, LexisNexis, HeinOnline), the search queries you ran, the secondary sources you consulted (treatises, law review articles, Restatements), and any practice guides or CLE materials you reviewed. This allows the reader to assess completeness and replicate your research if needed.
Summary of Findings
Provide a high-level overview of what your research revealed.
This is the executive summary — 1-2 paragraphs that give the reader the bottom line before diving into details. Identify the controlling authority, the general state of the law, and any significant uncertainties or splits. A busy attorney may read only this section.
Detailed Analysis
Present your research findings organized by sub-issue or theme.
Group related authorities together rather than listing them chronologically. For each sub-issue, identify the controlling rule, the key cases, and any trends or splits. Provide enough detail about each authority that the reader understands its holding and significance without having to read the full case. Use clear headings to separate sub-issues.
Conclusion
Summarize the state of the law, identify gaps, and suggest next steps.
Restate the key findings, flag any unresolved questions or areas where the law is unclear, and suggest additional research that might be warranted. If you identified a circuit split, note it. If a key question has not been addressed in your jurisdiction, identify the most persuasive authority from other jurisdictions.
Do's and Don'ts
Do
- Document your search methodology so the reader can assess completeness and replicate your work
- Organize findings by sub-issue rather than listing cases chronologically or alphabetically
- Distinguish between binding and persuasive authority, and between holdings and dicta
- Note circuit splits, conflicting authorities, or areas where the law is unsettled
- Flag any research avenues you did not have time to pursue so the reader knows what remains undone
Don't
- Do not just list cases — synthesize the authorities and explain how they relate to each other
- Do not include every case you found — focus on the most relevant and authoritative sources
- Do not present research findings without citing to specific pages, paragraphs, or sections
- Do not assume the reader will draw the same connections you did — make the relationships between authorities explicit
- Do not submit a research memo without verifying that your key authorities are still good law (check KeyCite/Shepard's)
- Do not bury your most important finding at the end — lead with the controlling authority
Before & After Examples
Before
I found three cases on this topic. In Case A, the court said X. In Case B, the court said Y. In Case C, the court said Z.
After
The majority of federal circuits (First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth) apply a two-part test requiring both subjective awareness and objective reasonableness. See, e.g., Smith v. Jones, 450 F.3d 123, 128 (7th Cir. 2006); Adams v. Brown, 380 F.3d 456, 461 (9th Cir. 2004). The Second and Sixth Circuits apply a purely objective standard. See Davis v. Wilson, 520 F.3d 789, 793 (2d Cir. 2008). The D.C. Circuit has not addressed the question, but dicta in Thompson v. United States, 600 F.3d 45, 52 (D.C. Cir. 2010), suggests it would adopt the majority approach.
The improved version synthesizes across authorities, identifies the circuit split, groups circuits by approach, and flags the status in the relevant jurisdiction. The case-by-case summary provides no synthesis and forces the reader to figure out how the cases relate.
Before
Sources: Westlaw, Google.
After
Sources consulted: (1) Westlaw: searched 'ALLFEDS' database using queries 'constructive eviction' /s 'commercial lease' /p 'substantial interference' and 'constructive eviction' /s 'commercial tenant' /p habitability; (2) LexisNexis: reviewed all annotations to Restatement (Second) of Property, Landlord & Tenant Section 6.1; (3) Secondary sources: 49A Am. Jur. 2d Landlord and Tenant Sections 512-530; Friedman on Leases Section 29:3; (4) KeyCited all primary authorities as of June 10, 2025.
The improved version documents specific databases, search queries, secondary sources, and currency of research. This allows the supervising attorney to assess whether the research was thorough and identify any gaps in the search strategy.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Presenting cases one by one without synthesizing them into a coherent picture of the law
Failing to document search methodology, making it impossible to assess whether the research was comprehensive
Not checking whether key authorities are still good law before submitting the memo
Including every case found rather than curating the most relevant and authoritative sources
Omitting the jurisdictional analysis — failing to distinguish between binding authority and persuasive authority from other jurisdictions
Burying the most important finding deep in the memo rather than highlighting it in the summary