1. Load

   ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md

   → jurisdiction, practice area.
2. Use the workflow below.
3. Frame the issue specifically. Build roadmap: statutory starting points (unverified), case law areas (not cases), secondary sources, search terms.
4. If student has existing research uploaded: synthesize and identify gaps.
5. Output with prominent "leads not authorities" header. Everything is a starting point the student verifies.

/legal-clinic:research-start "habitability defense to nonpayment eviction in [State]"

1. Read

   ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md

   →

   ## Seed documents

   . Identify any item whose purpose or filename matches the research area (e.g., "Alameda UD filing guide" for a UD habitability question; a redacted sample case file in the same practice area; a prior memo on the same issue).
2. For each match, surface it as a Seed documents to read first block at the top of the roadmap output. Name the file, say why it matters for this specific question, and say what it likely covers vs. where outside research will still be needed.
3. If no seed documents match the issue, say so plainly ("No clinic seed documents match this issue — proceeding straight to primary sources"). Don't fabricate a match.
4. If the clinic has the

   LIMITED DATA

   flag set in

   ## Seed documents

   , add a one-line note: "Clinic has fewer than 10 seed docs; your professor's precedent bank is thin — lean harder on primary sources and flag what's missing for your supervisor."

Likely relevant statutes (UNVERIFIED — confirm currency and applicability):

• [State] Landlord-Tenant Act, likely at [State Code Title X] — look for "warranty of habitability" or "repair and deduct"
• Local housing code for [City/County] — may define specific conditions (heat, water) as required

• [VERIFY each citation is current and correct — codes get renumbered]

Case law areas:

• [State] Supreme Court or appellate decisions on implied warranty of habitability — look for the leading case establishing the doctrine
• Cases on what conditions qualify — heat specifically, if any
• Cases on procedural prerequisites — did tenant have to give notice? withhold rent? escrow?
• Cases on the remedy — offset against rent owed, or a separate damages claim?

Administrative sources:

• [Agency] regulations at [CFR cite area]
• Agency guidance or policy manuals — often more current than regs
• For immigration: USCIS Policy Manual, BIA precedent decisions

Secondary sources (for framework, not to cite):

• [State] practice guide on landlord-tenant (check clinic library)
• Relevant CLE materials
• Law review notes on the specific issue if it's contested

Search terms to try:

• Westlaw:

  "warranty of habitability" /s heat! & [State]

• CourtListener:

  implied warranty of habitability AND (heat OR heater) AND [State]

• Refine based on what comes back — these are starting queries

[UNCERTAIN: whether [State] has a specific statute on this vs. common-law doctrine only — the search will tell you]

No silent supplement. This skill produces leads, not authoritative citations — by design, students run the citations down themselves. But if a query to a configured research tool (Westlaw, CourtListener) returns few or no results for a specific rule or case, say so and stop. Do NOT manufacture citations from web search or model knowledge to fill a thin result set without asking. Say: "The search returned [N] results from [tool]. Coverage appears thin for [rule]. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try a different research tool, (3) search the web — results will be tagged

[web search — verify]

and should be checked against a primary source before relying, or (4) stop here and flag the gap for your supervisor. Which would you like?" The supervising attorney decides whether to accept lower-confidence sources.

Source attribution. Tag every suggested citation with where it came from:

[Westlaw]

,

[CourtListener]

,

[Fastcase]

, or the MCP tool name for citations retrieved from a legal research connector;

[web search — verify]

for web-search citations;

[model knowledge — verify]

for citations recalled from training data;

[user provided]

for citations supplied by the supervising attorney or case file. Citations tagged

verify

carry higher fabrication risk and should be checked first. Never strip or collapse the tags — they tell the student which leads are raw research and which are model guesses to verify against a primary source.

From your research so far:

• You have: [summary of what's covered]
• Gap: [what the roadmap above suggests that you haven't found yet]

• [VERIFY: the case you cited — [name] — run through a citator (verify it is good law) it, it may have been distinguished or limited]

1. Start with a secondary source to get the framework
2. Find and read the primary statutes — confirm the citations above are current
3. Run the searches, find the leading cases
4. run through a citator (verify it is good law) everything before relying on it
5. Come back and run

   /memo

   to scaffold your analysis once you have the rule

• It does not give you citations you can use. Every cite above is a lead to verify, not an authority to rely on.
• It does not do the research. You do the research. This gets you to the starting line faster.
• It does not replace Westlaw. Those have the actual cases. This tells you where to point them.

undefined

• Provide authoritative citations. Explicitly, by design. The student verifies every cite before using it.
• Replace legal research. Accelerates the "where do I start" phase; the research itself is still the student's.
• Guarantee the roadmap is complete. It's a starting set of leads. The research may reveal sources the roadmap missed — that's fine, that's research.