.png)
Two incumbent research methodologies exist.
First, the ‘curated’ methodology. This includes textbooks and editorially selected reports: resources that are still invaluable in terms of providing doctrinal expertise. However, this methodology is limited in that it cannot scale indefinitely. Textbooks, reports, and the like cannot match the volume and velocity with which legal resources are abounding.
Second, ‘traditional’ digital search options. The emergence of online legal databases and online platforms solved the access to materials problem. However, access is not equivalent to understanding. These interfaces are limited, and their success is largely contingent on users’ ability to identify relevant keywords. This is a more difficult task than it seems: researchers must anticipate terminology used by judges, and run continual iterative searches to avoid missing relevant authority.
The consequences are familiar: lawyers retrieve a lot of material, then must manually sift and validate this excess of material in order to find an answer. Although such tools make the initial research act easier, they arguably leave the hardest part untouched: prioritisation of sources with defensible reasoning for choice and application of material.
A structurally appropriate solution to the abundance research problem must do three key things:
1. Treat the input as a legal question, not a string of keywords.
A legal question is not just text and keywords. A system that genuinely supports modern research should allow lawyers to ask questions naturally, and should respond in a way that reflects legal reasoning, instead of requiring the user to carefully construct the right query terms. If you are wondering what such a system looks like, book a demo with Habeas here.
2. Ensure transparent reasoning by keeping sources visible with traceable citations.
In law, trust depends on the verifiability of sources. Any system that produces an answer must allow a lawyer to check where the propositions come from. That means keeping underlying authorities visible, and making citations traceable so the pathway from question to authority to conclusion can be examined and refined. Amongst the high stakes of the legal world, transparency should be an expectation. That’s why we’ve incorporated transparent citations as part of the structural foundations of Habeas. Give it a try here.
3. Provide less results, but results that are more relevant to the particular question.
The abundance of materials makes it easy for a system to generate large lists, but harder to generate smaller, more relevant and clear lists. The goal is not to issue every vaguely or potentially relevant authority, but instead a manageable set of relevant sources that the lawyer can actually meaningfully engage with. Together, these requirements represent a shift in the modern requirements for research tools.
In an environment where legal resources are proliferating, Australian lawyers need tools that can help them navigate research with clarity and confidence. Clarity comes from reasoning and explanation, confidence comes from verifiable and transparent source citations.
Habeas is positioned to provide Australian lawyers with this clarity and confidence, as a product that offers question-led legal research grounded in Australian legal materials, that is designed to support legal reasoning rather than simply retrieve more documents. If you want to find out more, contact us or book a demo.
