Intro to Legal Research

Does the speaker fully and accurately describe the facts of the hypothetical, including all material details necessary for a listener to understand the legal problem?

Are the facts presented with enough specificity (parties, jurisdiction, key events, timeline) that a listener could independently begin researching the issue?

Does the speaker clearly articulate the specific legal question or research task the hypothetical is designed to answer?

Is the research task framed with sufficient precision that a listener understands what type of authority (statutory, case law, regulatory) would be needed to resolve it?

Does the speaker provide a substantive preliminary answer to the research task, rather than merely restating the question or offering a conclusory response?

Does the preliminary answer reference at least one statute and one case, as required by the assignment?

Is the preliminary answer appropriately scoped — detailed enough to demonstrate research depth, but concise enough to avoid over-explanation?

Does the presentation follow a logical structure with a clear beginning, body, and conclusion?

Is there a discernible opening statement that orients the listener to the topic, and a closing statement that summarizes the key takeaway?

Do transitions between sections (facts, research task, preliminary answer) feel deliberate rather than abrupt or disjointed?

Is the transcript relatively free of excessive filler words, false starts, or self-corrections that suggest lack of preparation?

Does the speaker deliver complete, well-formed sentences rather than frequently trailing off or losing the thread mid-thought?

Does the speaker demonstrate command of the material — explaining concepts in their own words — rather than appearing to recite memorized or read-aloud phrasing?

Does the speaker prioritize the most relevant information, avoiding tangential or extraneous content?

If the presentation appears truncated or rushed, are core elements (facts, research task, preliminary answer) all still present, with lower-priority details being what was cut?

Does the speaker demonstrate awareness of jurisdiction-specific considerations in their research and answer?

Are cited legal authorities referenced with enough specificity (case name, statute section) that a listener could locate them?

Does the speaker show evidence of a deliberate research methodology — moving from secondary sources to primary authority — rather than presenting sources in isolation?