Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Frame the legal question and identify applicable sources
2 weeks
Select a real legal question arising from a factual scenario — a contract dispute, a regulatory compliance question, a tort liability question, or a public law challenge. Identify the applicable legal sources: statutes, regulations, and primary cases. Produce a legal research plan covering the source hierarchy, applicable jurisdictions, and an initial assessment of whether the law is settled, contested, or unsettled on this question.
Proof required
Research plan document (300+ words) covering: the factual scenario, the legal question framed in legal terms, applicable sources identified by name and jurisdiction, source hierarchy, and initial assessment of settled/contested status with reasoning.
What gets checked
- Legal question is framed in legal terms — not just 'is this allowed?'
- Source hierarchy is identified correctly — primary sources before secondary, statute before case law where applicable
- Initial settled/contested assessment is reasoned, not asserted
Common mistakes
- Framing the question too broadly — 'what is the law on X?' is not a legal question suitable for a memo
- Ignoring jurisdiction — legal research is always jurisdiction-specific
- Omitting regulatory sources where they apply — statutes and regulations are primary sources
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm the legal question arises from a specific factual scenario
- Check source hierarchy — confirm statutes are identified before case law, and jurisdiction is specified
- Review the settled/contested assessment — confirm it is reasoned
Research the law and draft the memo in IRAC format
4 weeks
Research the applicable legal sources and draft a formal legal research memo in IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) for each legal sub-issue. The memo must: state the applicable rule with primary source citations, apply the rule to the specific facts with reasoning, address complications, and reach a conclusion on each sub-issue. Written in professional legal English addressed to a notional supervising lawyer or client.
Proof required
Legal research memo (1500+ words) in IRAC format with primary source citations for all rules stated, application reasoning connecting rule to specific facts, and a specific conclusion on each sub-issue. Full citation list.
What gets checked
- All rules stated have primary source citations — not secondary commentary as sole support
- Application sections reason from rule to facts — not restate both and conclude
- Each sub-issue reaches a specific conclusion — not 'it depends'
Common mistakes
- Using secondary sources (textbooks) as primary support for rules — rules must cite statutes or leading cases
- Application sections that restate rule and facts without connecting them
- Memo written like an essay — legal memos have a specific professional format
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Check citations — verify at least two rule citations against the cited source
- Review application sections — confirm reasoning connects rule to specific facts
- Confirm each sub-issue reaches a specific conclusion
Defend memo analysis under qualified lawyer challenge
1 week
Present the legal research memo to a qualified lawyer or law academic for a Q&A review. The reviewer must challenge specific analytical choices — 'there's a case that distinguishes your key authority', 'your application of rule X to fact Y — why that conclusion and not the opposite?', 'you assumed jurisdiction A applies — what if it's jurisdiction B?'. This Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE at Level 2.
Proof required
Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's legal credentials, at least three specific challenges to the memo analysis with responses, and any revisions committed to.
What gets checked
- Reviewer is a qualified lawyer or law academic
- At least three specific analytical challenges are documented
- At least one revision is committed to based on the session
Common mistakes
- Reviewer validates the memo without challenging specific analysis
- Not being able to explain reasoning behind a specific application under challenge
- No revisions after a genuine adversarial challenge
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm reviewer is a qualified lawyer or law academic
- Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific analytical challenges are documented
- Check that at least one revision is committed to