Chapter 3 · Educational
Reverse-Engineering the Question
A finished legal paragraph is really a stack of answers. Underneath each sentence is the research question it answers — and those questions are not just how you found the law. They are the architecture of everything you write next.
The four questions (fill in as you reveal them)
- Q1Click the first sentence to reveal…
- Q2Click the second sentence to reveal…
- Q3Click the third sentence to reveal…
- Q4Click the fourth sentence to reveal…
1 The finished paragraph
The finished paragraph
From Oakland Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Brown, 861 F.3d 644. Each sentence answers one research question.
Tip: reveal the questions above first — the table is built from them.
2 The same questions, as a table
Questions across the top, cases down the side
The questions become the columns. Each case you read becomes a row, and each cell holds that court’s answer to that question. Here only Pelham is filled in — the other rows are placeholders, to show the shape of multi-case synthesis without inventing law that isn’t there.
| Case | Q1General scope of malpractice law? | Q2Duty to non-clients ever owed? | Q3Requirements for the exception? | Q4Examples of non-client parties? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pelham v. GriesheimerIll. 1982 | Most malpractice plaintiffs are the attorney’s own client; the attorney–client relationship is what creates the duty. | Illinois recognizes a narrow exception — attorneys can owe duties to certain non-clients. | The duty arises only when the primary purpose and intent of the attorney–client relationship was to benefit or influence the third party. | Survey question. Answered across several cases, not Pelham alone — see the rows below. |
| A second case (placeholder) | —Placeholder. A second case would fill in its answer to Q1 here. | —Placeholder. A second case would fill in its answer to Q2 here. | —Placeholder. A second case would fill in its answer to Q3 here. | —Placeholder. A second case would fill in an example of a non-client party here. |
| A third case (placeholder) | —Placeholder. A third case would fill in its answer to Q1 here. | —Placeholder. A third case would fill in its answer to Q2 here. | —Placeholder. A third case would fill in its answer to Q3 here. | —Placeholder. A third case would fill in an example of a non-client party here. |
3 The same questions, as an outline
Each question is a heading; the answers are the notes beneath it
Stand the columns up on end and you have your annotated outline — the very thing that becomes your draft. The questions are the headings; the synthesized answers are the bullets; the colors are unchanged.
Q1General scope of Illinois legal malpractice law
- Most malpractice plaintiffs were clients of the defendant-attorney; the direct attorney–client relationship is what establishes the attorney’s duties. — Pelham, 92 Ill. 2d 13
Q2Whether a duty is ever owed to non-clients
- Illinois recognizes a narrow exception in which attorneys owe professional duties to persons who are not their clients. — Pelham
Q3Requirements for the non-client exception
- A duty runs to a third party only when the primary purpose and intent of the attorney–client relationship was to benefit or influence that third party. — Pelham, Id. at 100
Q4Examples of non-client parties owed a duty (survey question)
- Third-party beneficiaries of wills.
- Third-party beneficiaries of wrongful-death actions.
- Third-party recipients of formal opinion letters.
- [further cases from the survey would be pinned here]
That is the whole point of the method
One set of questions, three forms — recovered from a finished paragraph, laid out as a synthesis table, stood up as an outline. The questions are the structure that carries your research from reading to writing. Here you worked backward from a finished paragraph; when you research, you work forward toward one.
Try running the chain forward yourself in Working the Chain, or see it inside a real problem in Notice of Claim.