Plagiarizing secondary sources as a biglaw junior Forum

[Anonymous User]

As a biglaw litigation junior, I often need to write legal research memos or motions/briefs. I end up spending a lot of time rewording summaries of key cases or law from secondary sources or case law. Can I just straight-up copy and paste the summaries? Do I need to cite if the source is American Jurisprudence or something? What if the source is one of those biglaw marketing pdfs?

[Anonymous User]

As a biglaw litigation junior, I often need to write legal research memos or motions/briefs. I end up spending a lot of time rewording summaries of key cases or law from secondary sources or case law. Can I just straight-up copy and paste the summaries? Do I need to cite if the source is American Jurisprudence or something? What if the source is one of those biglaw marketing pdfs?

You should consult the secondary sources to see what cases and other primary authority are relevant. Then you should directly go to the cases and primary authority and quote and cite from the cases and primary authority. So, instead of quoting a secondary source that says "There is a circuit split on X issue." You should read the secondary source, see the cases it cites for the proposition that there is a circuit split, then go read those cases to confirm that there is in fact a circuit split. Then you write in your memo: "There is a circuit split. [cite primary authority/cases]." This isn't plagiarism, because you aren't claiming the secondary source's ideas as your own. You're using the secondary source as a reference to primary sources, and then you're quoting and citing the primary sources.

[Lacepiece23]

As a biglaw litigation junior, I often need to write legal research memos or motions/briefs. I end up spending a lot of time rewording summaries of key cases or law from secondary sources or case law. Can I just straight-up copy and paste the summaries? Do I need to cite if the source is American Jurisprudence or something? What if the source is one of those biglaw marketing pdfs?

I’d say err on the side of not being lazy and rewriting in some lame way. You bill at 500+? Maybe more? Idk. Guess what, this is why you bill at so much. I’m a plaintiff lawyer (former big law) and I even hesitate to sometimes just copy a section of law from a previous filing, which I could, without rewriting somewhat.

Why? Because that’s just not something that’s typically accepted in the profession and I don’t want someone to call me on it. If they did, I wouldn’t care all that much because I’m my own boss and whatever. But you’re a junior, and you bill by the hour, so just do more work than less. That’s the standard rule.

[Prudent_Jurist]

Echoing the above about going into the secondary source’s cited cases above, it’s important as a diligence issue. Obviously reputable secondary sources aren’t likely to get it wrong, but in terms of professional ethics, you have a duty of candor to the court, which means in part that you’ve verified your factual and legal assertions in good faith and to the extent you’re able.

As a practical matter, I read the summaries, then go into the cases to pull out the actual language that supports what the summaries say. That allows me to tailor the language better to the argument I want to make.

You can cite secondary sources, but it’s only useful for black letter law, in my opinion, and even then should be accompanied by binding authority for whatever court you’re addressing. Quoting the secondary sources (assuming it’s a treatise and not a one-off article) demonstrates that the legal proposition is widely accepted.

[nixy]

Yeah, don't cite AmJur or a marketing pdf. Do what everyone's said, use them to point you to the binding authority and cite to/quote the binding authority. I think you can let the secondary stuff help you summarize, but don't just flat out copy and paste it - there are always ways to superficially change it to avoid that. Plus, keep in mind that the reason you're summarizing it (for a specific matter) is different from why the secondary source is summarizing, so maybe think about how your summary is pertinent to your broader goal, and tailor it to that.

[Anonymous User]

As a biglaw litigation junior, I often need to write legal research memos or motions/briefs. I end up spending a lot of time rewording summaries of key cases or law from secondary sources or case law. Can I just straight-up copy and paste the summaries? Do I need to cite if the source is American Jurisprudence or something? What if the source is one of those biglaw marketing pdfs?

Mayyyyyyyyybe for a memo, but I would never cite a secondary source in a brief and never ever ever a marketing pdf. Those are just cheat sheets to get you to the cases, then you shephardize the cases and go from there. And the point that the secondary source will rarely be tailored to your particular issue is an important one. Even when you're just looking for some basic legal principle, the context of the case from which you take it matters.

[Anonymous User]

As a biglaw litigation junior, I often need to write legal research memos or motions/briefs. I end up spending a lot of time rewording summaries of key cases or law from secondary sources or case law. Can I just straight-up copy and paste the summaries? Do I need to cite if the source is American Jurisprudence or something? What if the source is one of those biglaw marketing pdfs?

Mayyyyyyyyybe for a memo, but I would never cite a secondary source in a brief and never ever ever a marketing pdf. Those are just cheat sheets to get you to the cases, then you shephardize the cases and go from there. And the point that the secondary source will rarely be tailored to your particular issue is an important one. Even when you're just looking for some basic legal principle, the context of the case from which you take it matters.

Agreed, but I would always cite it even in the memo. Often times people copy/paste from memo to a brief without knowing where the language came from.

What I'll often do is talk about the cases from the article and then refer the reader to the article for a more detailed analysis. This is great for quick email memos to a partner. I wouldn't do this for a client, though. If it's worth reading, the client will want you to show them the analysis, not some other rando pub.

[Anonymous User]

I am in-house and, as part of that I review lots of memos from associates as well as lots of bills. If your firm gives me a nine-page memo and bills the three hours you actually spent on it, I’m going to wonder why you only spent three hours on it. If you bill me for a full memo and I find out, I would write the memo off, go back through your firms’ previous bills with a magnifying glass, and demand you be removed from any of our matters. Even with all that, there is a good chance I still fire your firm. Taking one of these unethical shortcuts at the wrong time and getting caught, even once, can absolutely derail a junior’s career.

[Anonymous User]

I am in-house and, as part of that I review lots of memos from associates as well as lots of bills. If your firm gives me a nine-page memo and bills the three hours you actually spent on it, I’m going to wonder why you only spent three hours on it. If you bill me for a full memo and I find out, I would write the memo off, go back through your firms’ previous bills with a magnifying glass, and demand you be removed from any of our matters. Even with all that, there is a good chance I still fire your firm. Taking one of these unethical shortcuts at the wrong time and getting caught, even once, can absolutely derail a junior’s career.

This sounds extreme. Just to be clear - you're saying if you think a firm UNDERBILLED for something you'll automatically look through the memo for plagiarism? And then rage on the junior who wrote it?

Regardless, I don't think OP is suggesting taking large swaths of a publication and pasting it into a memo to pass it off as their own analysis. I think it's more about copying a sentence or two summarizing the state of the law here or there. That wouldn't make a dent on the bills, and it's not really unethical if they check up on the work. I've seen briefs that were largely copied from other filings (to the point that they get the party names wrong) - some degree of copying is sort of expected in this industry. Just do your due diligence to be sure it's right.

[run26.2]

As a biglaw litigation junior, I often need to write legal research memos or motions/briefs. I end up spending a lot of time rewording summaries of key cases or law from secondary sources or case law. Can I just straight-up copy and paste the summaries? Do I need to cite if the source is American Jurisprudence or something? What if the source is one of those biglaw marketing pdfs?

I cannot think of a scenario where I think it is a good idea to simply cut and paste a secondary source's summary of the law, except perhaps where someone you're working for says something like "go get me case summaries from recent cases in this area and send me the cases, too, and I'll read them" or something like that. If you're writing a memo for your client or for another lawyer at your law firm, you're supposed to know how the law applies to your issues. The likelihood that a secondary source's summary of another case directly applies to your case is virtually nil. You need to read the case, digest its meaning, and then pull out the parts that matter to your case and explain their import to your case. The summaries may be helpful in identifying cases, but not in being a source for your memo. And they're just a start (if you want to go that route). You should also be doing independent research and reading the cases cited in the cases you get from the secondary sources and your own research. You will be a MUCH better lawyer by doing this. Though it is time consuming for a couple of years (maybe), to always do this, you will get faster at identifying the salient points in the cases, identifying your best cases, and figuring out the best ways (or at least a good way) to distinguish the cases your side doesn't like.

In terms of your question as it relates to motions and briefs, I'm assuming you haven't done this. I think it's self-evident this is unacceptable. A court would probably discredit an argument it understood was being presented based on a summary of the case from a secondary source and your reputation could take a hit. Most likely, though, before that point, the partner responsible for reviewing the draft would realize this was the case and have it fixed. And you don't want to be the person to have your work fixed for that reason. Do the research and get it right. It takes time but it pays dividends.

[RedNewJersey]

Gotta say, this seems pretty bad. The biggest issue isn't plagiarism (though maybe that's an issue). The problem is that secondary summaries are of limited value as a legal resource for any actual use case.

The question was can I quote, or do I have to paraphrase, but paraphrasing seems even worse, since you might accidentally change an important qualification or misstate something. The only way to use secondary sources is as a way to start your research somewhere. But then, you have to not only read the cases, but make sure you've read the most recent and relevant cases for your particular issue. Then you summarize the key cases in your work product. By then, it's highly unlikely to be that similar to a secondary source.

Also, for what it's worth, usually secondary summaries aren't that good, or are slightly slanted.

[nixy]

The one thing I’ll say in defense of the OP is that the question could less about “can I just use these secondary source summaries” and more “do I really have to rephrase something that’s really basic and says exactly what I need it to say?” Like there are only so many ways to word certain legal concepts (like the standard for summary judgment, for ex).

That said, it rarely actually is the best way to say something for your particular purpose (and there are also some secondary sources that are much more respectable than others. I can’t even think when I last looked at AmJur).

[glitched]

Just quote the actual case. If you're citing it, you should have read it anyway. A nice quote will always be more persuasive as well.

I copy and paste entire blurbs from secondary sources in emails sometimes, but it's only for internal purposes and quick legal research situations where people need to be informed quickly.

[ksm6969]

Plagiarism in an actual brief can be sanctionable, though I assume it would need to be particularly egregious. https://www.planproponent.com/2021/12/i ... k-product/

[Anonymous User]

Plagiarism in an actual brief can be sanctionable, though I assume it would need to be particularly egregious. https://www.planproponent.com/2021/12/i ... k-product/

Yikes. Those cases come as a shocker. I think this thread generally trended in the right direction - plagiarism isn't per se unethical, but it can be strong evidence that you haven't met your ethical obligation to your client by doing your due diligence.

I don't see any ethical obligation to be original - in fact the point is often to say the facts of your case are unoriginal that it should be decided the same way as others in the past. This job would be much more exciting, though, if we always had to present novel legal theories at every turn.

[Anonymous User]

Hey, OP here. To clarify a few things:

I read all cases and necessary law to write a memo. But often memos will require me to include three or four sentences summarizing a case that I have read. This might take me fifteen or twenty minutes to write. I am asking whether I can use a secondary source (or another case’s) three sentence summary, instead of spending the fifteen minutes to write the same thing. Basically, I feel like I’m spending a chunk of time changing “the court said he strolled down the street” to “the court noted he walked down the road” in order to not plagiarize from a secondary source.

It seems like the answer is a clear no.

I am certainly not asking whether I can plagiarize actual analysis/anything substantive.

[Joachim2017]

LOL at the in-house who's gonna release his/her almighty rage and fire a law firm because a junior copy/pasted some text in a legal research memo and derail that person's career. must really be dealing with some high-stakes work there, fella.

[Anonymous User]

LOL at the in-house who's gonna release his/her almighty rage and fire a law firm because a junior copy/pasted some text in a legal research memo and derail that person's career. must really be dealing with some high-stakes work there, fella.

The weird thing about this (also from someone who worked in house and reviewed bills) is that we know huge chunks of attorney work product are copy/pasted material-- contracts, NDAs, patents, etc.-- and I dont think anyone has an issue with it (it would be crazy for an in house person to say "no copy paste from template"), assuming we know it was checked and is good (which, if we dont trust our law firm, is a bigger issue).. If I got charged low time for a memo, and was told "we had a similar memo for a similar issue, so it didnt require much research or drafting", that would be the end of it. If I was told "we found a secondary source that was on point, so were able to save some time," i really couldnt see what the issue is. (In this case, I assume they would let me know, "this answer mosts of your questions," and send me the secondary source, and I would pay them essentially to put their name on the opinion to protect me). If you dont trust your law firm's legal opinions, then its a bigger issue.

[Anonymous User]

I’m the in-house poster above. Not sure how you and everyone missed the point, but I said I would fire a firm over padding bills, not submitting copied work product. If you don’t understand why copying a secondary source into a memo, slapping your name on it, and billing my client 10 hours for an hour of work, I don’t know what to tell you.

I also never said I would “rage” on the junior or derail their career. I would rage on the relationship partner.

[Anonymous User]

I’m the in-house poster above. Not sure how you and everyone missed the point, but I said I would fire a firm over padding bills, not submitting copied work product. If you don’t understand why copying a secondary source into a memo, slapping your name on it, and billing my client 10 hours for an hour of work, I don’t know what to tell you.

I also never said I would “rage” on the junior or derail their career. I would rage on the relationship partner.

Op here – not trying to bill for time I didn’t work. Just seeing if I can save ten minutes here or there (and thus save the client money) avoiding unnecessarily rewording two or three sentences to make it our own. Isn’t that just a waste of money for you?

[Anonymous User]

I think everyone is being extreme. Sometimes research is done not to be used in a brief, but to inform decision making. Example: I was recently asked to lay out the law on a specific strategic issue to determine what course we should take. I found the exact thing from a treatise, quoted the treatise, said the info was from the treatise, confirmed the cases and billed .2 hours. The partners were happy because it allowed them to advise the client quickly and move on.

[nixy]

I think everyone is being extreme. Sometimes research is done not to be used in a brief, but to inform decision making. Example: I was recently asked to lay out the law on a specific strategic issue to determine what course we should take. I found the exact thing from a treatise, quoted the treatise, said the info was from the treatise, confirmed the cases and billed .2 hours. The partners were happy because it allowed them to advise the client quickly and move on.

Quoting a treatise and citing a treatise isn’t the same as taking a summary of cases from AmJur or a law firm document, though.