Guide

How to Instruct First Precedent

This guide is written for any practitioner — whether or not they will eventually instruct First Precedent. The principles below apply to instructing any researcher, internal or external, junior or senior.

A research engagement is only as useful as the brief that initiates it. Time spent on the brief is time saved on the research.

I. Framing the Question

The single most useful thing an instructing practitioner can do is to frame the research question precisely.

A research question is not a litigation strategy. "How do we win this case?" is not a research question. "What is the current position of the Supreme Court on the maintainability of consumer complaints filed beyond the limitation period under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019?" is a research question.

The narrower and more specific the question, the more useful the answer. Where the question must remain broad — for example, in early-stage diligence — say so explicitly. Acknowledged breadth is easier to scope than implicit breadth.

II. Information We Need

At the point of instruction, share:

  1. The legal question, framed as above.
  2. The factual background, in the level of detail relevant to the question.
  3. Any prior research already undertaken — including dead ends.
  4. Any specific authorities you want considered, and any you have already discounted.
  5. The procedural posture, where relevant.
  6. The deadline by which the work product is needed and what hangs on it.

III. Scope and Constraints

State the boundaries of the research at the outset. Are we looking only at Indian authority, or do you want comparative material? Are we limited to reported judgments, or do unreported judgments and tribunal orders matter? Is there a temporal cut-off — only the last five years, or the full doctrinal history?

Naming constraints in advance prevents wasted work and surfaces disagreements early.

IV. Turnaround and Timing

Realistic turnaround for substantive research is rarely faster than three working days for focused work, five to seven for a full memorandum, and longer for multi-jurisdictional or legislative-history work. Same-day and next-day turnaround is possible at a premium for narrow questions; it is not possible for substantive analysis without compromising the verification protocol.

Speed costs precision. We are explicit about this; clients should be too.

V. What We Cannot Do

We do not provide legal advice. We do not appear in court. We do not draft pleadings to be filed without practitioner review. We do not second-guess the strategic judgment of the instructing practitioner. We will, however, flag where the research suggests that a strategic premise of the brief is not supported by the authorities — that is a research finding, not strategic interference.

Submit a Brief →