A legal research seminar on ideas and expression
For legal research instructors and students.
How can a seminar test whether students read the authority behind an AI answer?
Give students a concrete problem and require a source trail that a classmate can reproduce. This exercise uses the difference between a process and the words used to describe it. Students earn credit for supporting a narrow conclusion and identifying the facts a broader conclusion would require.
Give the class a fictional problem
Two workshop handouts describe the same three-step method for organizing tools. In version A, the second author describes the method independently. In version B, the second author also copies a distinctive explanatory paragraph. Ask students which difference matters under 17 U.S.C. § 102 and what that section alone can establish.
Allow ten minutes to locate subsections (a) and (b) in an authoritative source. Have each student write one sentence about the process and one about the written description. Require the precise subsection, a link and a brief explanation in the student's own words.
Swap answers and challenge a claim
A partner opens the cited text and marks each claim supported, qualified or beyond the source. Ask what happens if the second handout uses the same method but different language. Then ask what additional research or facts would be needed to assess the copied paragraph, including whether the particular wording qualifies for protection and whether any defense applies.
If an AI answer is introduced, give every student the same saved answer. Grade the students on how they test it. A correct-looking citation that leads to an unrelated passage earns no source credit.
Score the research trail
Award two points each for locating the authoritative text, explaining subsection (a), explaining subsection (b), applying the difference to the two versions, and identifying one unresolved issue with a next research step. In the debrief, ask a student to show the exact source location where their reasoning would change if the facts changed.
Worked example
Illustrative answer. Section 102(a) addresses original works fixed in a tangible medium. Section 102(b) excludes processes and ideas from the protection the statute grants to expression. Using a method and copying the author's chosen words therefore pose different questions. These two provisions alone do not resolve whether the second author infringed a copyright.
Primary sources
Related work at Agentic Attorney
This classroom exercise is part of the shared Agentic Attorney resource collection. Its hub describes AI consulting and implementation for legal teams. Explore Agentic Attorney’s approach to AI implementation.