# Clinic Research Start > Kick off legal research on a new clinic issue by framing the question, prioritizing primary sources, and verifying every citation before it is relied on. - Skill: `matrixx0070/clinic-research-start` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add matrixx0070/clinic-research-start` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/matrixx0070/clinic-research-start/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: Matrixx0070 (https://skillmd.com/u/matrixx0070) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/matrixx0070/clinic-research-start --- ## When to use Use this when a new matter or a fresh legal issue lands and you need a disciplined research plan before drafting anything. It helps you turn a vague client problem into a researchable question, choose sources primary-first, plan search terms, and lock in a verification loop so nothing unverified reaches a memo. **Not for:** producing the status snapshot that goes to your supervisor (use clinic-status), transferring an in-flight matter to the next cohort (use clinic-semester-handoff), or queueing finished drafts for attorney sign-off (use clinic-supervisor-review-queue). This skill never produces client-facing advice — a supervising attorney must review any work product, and as a student you research under supervision only and cannot give independent legal advice (Model Rule 5.5). ## Method 1. Frame the issue as a precise legal question: jurisdiction, parties, the rule at stake, and the fact that makes it live. 2. Identify controlling authority first — constitution, statutes, regulations, then binding case law — before any secondary or GenAI source. 3. Plan search terms: statutory citations, terms-and-connectors, and natural-language variants; note the databases you will use (Westlaw/Lexis/official reporters). 4. Treat any GenAI output as a lead only, never as authority. **Decision point:** if you cannot pull the cited authority in an authoritative database and read it in full, discard it — do not cite it. Unverified GenAI citations violate the candor and competence duties (ABA Op. 512; the Mata v. Avianca fake-cases sanction). 5. Shepardize/KeyCite every case and confirm statutes are current and not superseded. 6. Strip client-identifying facts before entering anything into an external or GenAI tool (Rule 1.6), and log open questions for your supervisor. ## Example > Issue: Can our tenant client recover a withheld security deposit plus penalties under state law after a 45-day silence? Start with the deposit statute, pull the penalty subsection, KeyCite the two appellate cases the intake memo names, and confirm neither was reversed before drafting. ## Pitfalls - Citing a case surfaced by GenAI without reading the opinion — the Mata v. Avianca trap. - Starting with secondary sources or blog summaries instead of controlling primary authority. - Pasting the client's name or identifying facts into an external research or GenAI tool (Rule 1.6 breach). - Skipping Shepardize/KeyCite, so you rely on overruled or superseded authority. ## Output format ``` MATTER: ISSUE: CONTROLLING AUTHORITY (primary-first): SEARCH PLAN: VERIFICATION LOG: GENAI LEADS (unverified): OPEN QUESTIONS FOR SUPERVISOR: ``` ## Reference - ABA Formal Opinion 512: GenAI competence, confidentiality, and candor — never rely on unverified GenAI citations. - Model Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.6 (confidentiality), 5.5 (UPL/supervision). - Clinic norm: no work product leaves for a client or court without supervising-attorney review.