[{"titre":"CALL Member Article: Thoughts on the New Lexis+ Brief Analysis Tool: For Law Students and Novice Researchers","url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12957419","pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:49 +0100","source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","description":"CALL member Erica Friesen, Research and Instruction Librarian & Online Learning Specialist at the Lederman Law Library at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario recently wrote an article on \" Thoughts on the New Lexis+ Brief Analysis Tool: For Law Students and Novice Researchers \". It originally appeared on Slaw.ca on September 28, 2022. It is republished here with permission of the author. New academic year; new legal research tools. Something new always comes out right as another cohort of students is gearing up to begin their law degree. And, as with many new product launches these days, “artificial intelligence” is often a prominently displayed term with accompanying materials. As legal publishers continue to launch AI-driven research tools in Canada, what do students and other novice researchers need to know to be prepared for their first forays into legal research? Lexis recently launched the latest version of their legal research platform, Lexis+ Canada, for Canadian law schools. It features significant updates that employ artificial intelligence, including a “Brief Analysis” tool in line with similar products offered by Westlaw Edge (on the US platform) and vLex (already available in Canada). According to Lexis+, this tool helps researchers “expedite completion of briefs and other legal documents.” Once your document is uploaded, it spits out a report including the following categories: 1) recommended cases, 2) cases and legislation cited in your document, 3) jurisdiction, and 4) extracted and recommended concepts. While I do not intend to comment on the utility of this tool for practitioners, I have no doubt that students beginning law school or working in summer or articling positions are bound to encounter this new feature sooner or later. When you do, you may have questions: should I be using this tool? How or how not? The landing page for this tool in Lexis+ contains no information on how this tool works and the Lexis+ Canada “Help” database so far contains minimal documentation. Confusion or uncertainty is understandable with such opacity. To gain some insight, let’s run an experiment: take two case comments written by different authors on the same Supreme Court case from 2004. [1] An older decision means that we should retrieve an abundance of recommendations from the intervening 18 years. Both comments include an overview of the area of law at the time of this decision as well as an analysis of how this particular decision would change the area of law. Once Lexis analyzed these documents, I exported the resulting report and compared the results for each comment. Here are the two documents, in case you’d like to run the experiment yourself: Comment A: Teresa Scassa, “Recalibrating Copyright Law?: A Comment on the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in CCH Canadian Limited et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada ”, Case Comment, (2004) 3:2 CJLT 89. Comment B: WL Hayhurst, “The Canadian Supreme Court on Copyright: CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada ”, Case Comment, (2004-2005) 41 Can Bus LJ 134. Recommended Cases “Recommendations” is the section of the Brief Analysis report that lists additional case law for you to consider adding to your legal document. Brief Analysis recommended 58 unique cases in total between Comment A and Comment B. However, only 10 of those cases were the same between the two documents (after adjusting for “recommended” cases that were actually cited in the other document). See Figure 1 . Key takeaway: Legal research and writing is an art, not a science. AI-driven tools like these run on the material that you upload, so you can expect substantially different results depending on the quality of analysis and the decisions you made in producing the original document. This does not mean that there is no value in using the tool, but you cannot expect it to help you build something from nothing. Recommendations are based on the content in the document,","id":3241473},{"source":"Slaw","description":"A consensus is emerging in law schools across Canada and the US that AI has no place in teaching the core curriculum, because it impedes student learning, especially in first year. Schools are beginning to follow the University of Chicago’s lead in banning AI in first-year core courses. Some profs are also banning laptops in classrooms — taking every precaution to shield students’ developing minds from the corrosive effects of AI. Michael Plaxton, one of the leading voices in Canada thinking through the many challenges AI poses to legal education, crystallizes the argument: “The case for law schools must be . . . [more] The post The Argument for Encouraging Student Use of AI in First-Year Law appeared first on Slaw","id":3133345,"url":"https://www.slaw.ca/2026/09/03/the-argument-for-encouraging-student-use-of-ai-in-first-year-law/","titre":"The Argument for Encouraging Student Use of AI in First-Year Law","pubDate":"Fri, 04 Sep 2026 07:59:07 +0200"},{"url":"https://www.slaw.ca/2026/08/21/briefcases-cigarettes-the-law-library-of-1978/","titre":"Briefcases & Cigarettes: The Law Library of 1978","pubDate":"Sat, 22 Aug 2026 07:56:57 +0200","description":"This summer our law library intern (shout out to Bailey Kaye!) is reviewing our archival casebook collection for a digitization project. Among them was a casebook for exchange students arriving at Dalhousie Law School in 1978. It outlined an introduction to the common law, as provided by the Sir James Dunn Law Library. In this casebook, the Sir James Dunn Law Library included a helpful list of general information about library etiquette. Let’s review how you were to conduct yourself in the law library of 1978, shall we? The one rule that has survived nearly word-for-word, across nearly fifty years . . . [more] The post Briefcases & Cigarettes: The Law Library of 1978 appeared first on Slaw","id":3110437,"source":"Slaw"},{"source":"Business Today","description":"Key Takeaways: Pioneering Investment in Education: French and Canadian Funds Boost LIS In a groundbreaking move reshaping the landscape of higher education, the London Interdisciplinary School (LIS) secures a transformative investment exceeding £10 million from prestigious entities, including a French Grand Ecole and a Canadian Pension Fund. This strategic partnership marks a significant step towards fostering interdisciplinary learning and preparing students for the multifaceted challenges of the modern world. Reinforcing Interdisciplinary Learning: A Strategic Investment The infusion of funds from prominent institutions underscores the growing recognition of interdisciplinary education’s importance in cultivating well-rounded graduates equipped to address complex global issues. The post Revolutionary Investment Alert: Major Funds Join Hands to Transform UK Education! appeared first on Business Today","id":1270382,"titre":"Revolutionary Investment Alert: Major Funds Join Hands to Transform UK Education!","url":"https://businesstoday.news/revolutionary-investment-alert-major-funds-join-hands-to-transform-uk-education/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=revolutionary-investment-alert-major-funds-join-hands-to-transform-uk-education","pubDate":"Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:40:56 +0200"}]