Remote | Legal Research Specialist (Lexis+) — $70–$115/hour

24-Mag•New York, NY

21h•Remote

About The Position

We are sharing a specialised part-time consulting opportunity for experienced legal research professionals with substantial hands-on expertise using Lexis+ for case law, statutory, regulatory, and multi-jurisdictional research. This role focuses on evaluating sophisticated legal research for authority, currency, completeness, and professional accuracy. Selected professionals will verify cases, statutes, regulations, quotations, holdings, and citations; identify missing controlling authority; distinguish binding from persuasive precedent; and apply advanced Lexis+ research techniques to complex legal questions.

Requirements

At least 2 years of professional legal research experience
Frequent substantive use of Lexis+, typically weekly or more, in a current or recent professional role
Strong practical knowledge of Shepard's and legal citation validation
Ability to quickly identify weak citations, misstated holdings, outdated statutes, and authority problems
Experience conducting complex case law, statutory, regulatory, or multi-jurisdictional research
Strong understanding of hierarchy of authority and jurisdictional precedent
Excellent legal writing, analytical reasoning, and attention to detail
A Juris Doctor degree with bar admission is highly relevant
An MLIS or equivalent qualification combined with professional law librarian or legal research experience may also qualify
Equivalent research-intensive professional experience may be considered
Advanced training in legal research, litigation, statutory analysis, or legal information systems may strengthen an application

Nice To Haves

Advanced familiarity with Lexis+ with Protégé
Experience using Shepard's Graphical and litigation issue filters
Familiarity with Lex Machina Litigation Analytics
Experience with CourtLink, PACER, Brief Analysis, or comparable litigation research tools
Background conducting 50-state surveys or complex multi-jurisdictional research
Experience using Matthew Bender treatises, ALR, Am. Jur., or Practical Guidance
Familiarity with historical statutory and regulatory research
Experience reviewing legal research produced by attorneys, researchers, or AI systems

Responsibilities

Verify cases, statutes, and regulations cited in legal research
Confirm that authorities remain good law for the specific proposition cited
Identify negative Shepard's treatment, overruling risk, superseded authority, and other validity concerns
Verify quotations, holdings, pin cites, and descriptions of judicial decisions
Identify nonexistent, mischaracterised, or incorrectly cited authorities
Use Shepard's Citations Service to evaluate subsequent treatment and authority status
Interpret Shepard's Signal indicators and Depth of Discussion information
Review citing references and assess the significance of positive, negative, or questioning treatment
Distinguish overruled, superseded, depublished, and factually distinguished authorities
Apply verify-before-finalise research practices consistently
Conduct terms-and-connectors, natural-language, and segment-based searches
Use Lexis Headnotes, Case Summaries, Case Notes, and annotated statutory materials
Work with Lexis+ and Protégé features for litigation research and AI-assisted discovery
Use secondary authorities including treatises, ALR, Am. Jur., practice guides, and Practical Guidance
Evaluate 50-state and multi-jurisdictional research while keeping jurisdictional differences clearly separated
Review annotated statutes and regulations for currentness and applicability
Identify historical versions and changes in statutory or regulatory language
Determine which version of a law was in force on a specific operative date
Assess effective dates, amendments, superseding provisions, and related authority
Verify that legal conclusions rely on the correct law for the relevant period
Determine whether controlling authority has been identified
Identify significant on-point cases or authorities omitted from an analysis
Distinguish binding precedent from persuasive authority
Review legal research for completeness, methodological rigour, and defensibility
Provide clear written feedback explaining research deficiencies and required corrections