In ‘Thinking like a research expert’, Paul Callister suggests that “working the problem” is something like learning to conduct a good reference interview or completing a writing assignment in middle school. A heuristic model, such as a checklist, can be helpful, but the most important task is to think through the problem and learn as much about it as possible. Medical doctors are taught to do this; vital signs are called out as a patient is wheeled into an emergency room. Law students must also learn this skill.

Callister presents a table that breaks down the analytic elements of a typical research problem a new lawyer may encounter as part of client interview or as part of an assignment from a supervising lawyer. For librarians, this may be recognisable as a reference interview, adapted for use in a law firm setting.

“Working the problem” schema: what you need to know

Callister’s “Working the problem’ schema has roots in the old fashioned who, what, where, why, when questions you heard at school.

Who?

Parties - Who are we representing (i.e., which side of the issue are we on-buyer or seller, plaintiff or defendant, etc.)? What legal entities are involved (any trusts, corporations, partnerships, etc.)?

What?

Descriptive Words of Facts or Terms of Art – Besides the term “profit-sharing plan,” are there other terms I should be using, like “pension” or “retirement”? I’m not sure if I understand the difference or if it matters. How else might a “sole shareholder” be described in the literature?

Descriptive Words of Legal Issues – Do you think that the best subject heading to describe the problem is “exemptions from creditors”?

Specific Sources to be Used - For my research on retirement plans and exemptions from creditors, is there any specific treatise or looseleaf service I should consult in addition to CCH’s Pension Plan Guide?

Where?

Applicable Jurisdictions - Do you want me to research federal bankruptcy law as well as California debtor-creditor law? Do you want me to confine my federal research to California? Are you interested in any other states? Are there any choice-of-law issues?

When?

Time Periods - What time periods do you want me to research? Are the last two years sufficient? Does the time period (day, night, season, etc.) of any of the events in the case matter?

Time Deadlines/Priority - Do you want a quick answer or exhaustive research? If I complete this by Tuesday morning, is that OK?

Why?

Objective – What are we trying to accomplish with this memo, brief, motion, contract, etc.? How do we want this to come out?

How?

Precision/Recall – Do you want all of the relevant journal articles or just the best article on the topic? Do you want all of the cases dealing with retirement plans in debtor-creditor law or just two or three cases that bear the closest relationship to the issue?

Billable Time/Costs – How long should this take me? Are billable hours limited? May I use Lexis and/or Westlaw? Which parts of the research, if any, would you do online? Do you want me to try and use free sources for my research? Has anyone ever done similar research on the topic that I should know about?

Presentations of Results and Reporting Back – How do you want me to present my results? Do you just want printouts marked with highlighter or a full memo? Should I check back with my initial results before proceeding any further?

For the full article, see: Callister, Paul D. ‘Thinking Like a Research Expert: Schemata for Teaching Complex Problem-Solving Skills’, Legal Reference Services Quarterly, 28:1, 31 – 51