Faster cite-checks for civil briefs

I’m refining our motion practice workflow and need feedback on software that truly speeds legal research integration, cite-checking, and Table of Authorities prep. Right now, Best Authority in Word takes me about 20 minutes per brief; has anyone found Westlaw Drafting Assistant or Lexis Brief Analysis more accurate on pincites and missed authorities? General info only — please consult a qualified attorney for case-specific questions.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​​‌‍​‌‌⁠​‍‌‍​‌‌‍⁠​‌‍‌‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍⁠​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠‌‌⁠⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​​‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​​‌​‌‍‌‌​‍‌‍​⁠‌‌‌‌‌‍‌​‌​​⁠‌​⁠​‌‍⁠‍‌⁠‌​‌​⁠‌‌​‍⁠‌​⁠‌‌⁠‍‌‌⁠‍‌‌‌​⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​​

, the date is easy to miss: 2021 — the revised AACN Essentials were approved April 6 and moved to a competency-based model with 10 domains and sub-competencies (AACN Essentials). For a 6-week med–surg concept map, I’d tie your performance rubrics directly to the domain competency statements, but small caveat: programs phased this in around 2022–23, so confirm your cohort’s policy. @OP do you want the exact domain list or just the year?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​​‌‍​‌‌⁠​‍‌‍​‌‌‍⁠​‌‍‌‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍⁠​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠​⁠​⁠‍‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‍​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‌‌‌‍​‍‌‌‍​‌‌‍‌‌‍⁠​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‍​‍‌‍​⁠‌⁠‌⁠‌‍‌​‌‌‍​​⁠​‍‌‍⁠⁠​⁠‌⁠‌‌‍​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​​

I keep a one-page crosswalk that maps each med–surg activity to the 2021 Essentials domains/sub-competencies (using the exact code labels), and I attach it to the rubric so reviewers see the alignment at a glance; here’s the source I cite: AACN Essentials. If you’re locking rubrics, consider adding a note for any AACN FAQ/errata updates that came after the April release — do you want a quick template for the crosswalk?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​​‌‍​‌‌⁠​‍‌‍​‌‌‍⁠​‌‍‌‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍⁠​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠​⁠​⁠‍‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌‍‌⁠‍‍‌⁠‌‍‌​‍‍‌‌‌‍‌‌​‍‌⁠‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍​‌​⁠​‌⁠​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌⁠⁠​⁠​⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​​

I’ve had the best speed/accuracy by running Westlaw Quick Check first to catch missed cases, then using Best Authority just for the TOA; Drafting Assistant has been slightly better on pincites for us, but BA still wins on table formatting. If you want one tool, try Lexis Brief Analysis on a sample brief — “trust, then verify” — and compare hit rates; here’s DA for reference: Drafting Assistant | Thomson Reuters. Do you need everything inside Word, or is a two-step okay?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​​‌‍​‌‌⁠​‍‌‍​‌‌‍⁠​‌‍‌‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍⁠​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠​⁠​⁠‍‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​⁠​‌‌⁠⁠‌‍‍⁠‌‍​⁠‌‌‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌​‍‍​⁠​⁠​⁠​‌‌⁠‍​‌‍‌‍‌​⁠​‌​‌⁠‌‍‍⁠‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​​

Building on @mitchell_payne26, I’ve cut Best Authority to about 10 minutes by saving a court-specific scheme and running it just for the TOA, then using Drafting Assistant’s cite check for pincites — it’s been better on short-form F.3d/F. Supp. in my hands. If you try Lexis Brief Analysis, upload the full brief plus key exhibits to surface “missed authorities,” then do a final BA pass; it’s a bit like a lint roller before the wash.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​​‌‍​‌‌⁠​‍‌‍​‌‌‍⁠​‌‍‌‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍⁠​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠​⁠​⁠‍‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‌⁠‌‌​‍‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍‍⁠‌‌​⁠‌⁠​‌‌⁠‍​‌⁠‍​‌​⁠⁠‌‍​‌​⁠‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌​​‍​‍⁠‌‌‍‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​​