I am currently a third-year law student and have completed a few litigation internships where I was regularly assigned legal research tasks. One challenge I repeatedly face is that a single legal issue often has 20–30 relevant judgments, many of which are 100–300 pages long. As an intern working under tight deadlines, it is simply not practical to read every judgment from beginning to end.
The problem is that I am never sure how experienced lawyers approach such research. If I skim through a judgment, I worry that I might miss an important observation, a distinguishing fact, or a key legal principle. On the other hand, if I try to read every judgment in full, I spend far too much time on the assignment and struggle to complete my work within the expected timeline. I often find myself unsure about which parts of a judgment deserve close attention and which sections can safely be skipped.
My question is: When you are researching a legal issue with dozens of lengthy judgments, what is your practical approach to reading and analysing them efficiently? How do you quickly identify the ratio, relevant facts, and key observations while ensuring that you do not overlook an important point or precedent? Are there any techniques for the same?
The biggest mistake law students make is thinking that good lawyers read every judgment from cover to cover.
They don’t. If I have 20-30 judgments on an issue, I first identify two judgments.
The first is the locus classicus, where the law was authoritatively laid down.
The second is the most recent judgment, because chances are it has already discussed, distinguished and summarised the entire line of precedents. There is little value in independently reading twenty judgments if the Court has already done that exercise for you.
When I read a judgment, I don’t read it page by page. I first identify the issue before the Court. Then I read only the discussion on that issue. Finally, I read the conclusion. If my issue is one out of five issues in a 300-page judgment, I have no reason to spend time on the other four.
If, during the analysis, the Court relies heavily on an older judgment, I go back and read that one as well. Otherwise, I usually don’t.
With experience, you realise that legal research is less about reading more and more about knowing what not to read.
The test is simple. After closing a judgment, can you answer one question: “Why would I cite this case?”
If I can answer that in one or two sentences, I move on.
The objective is never to finish the judgment. The objective is to finish the research.
