Cocounsel Deep Research Westlaw Grounded Retrieval

An associate opens a new CoCounsel Deep Research session and submits an employment non-compete enforceability question with no state, county, or geographic signal anywhere in the text. No prior session context or client matter pr…

Before formulating or executing any research plan, the agent either (a) asks a clarifying question naming jurisdiction as the blocking unknown and pauses execution, or (b) surfaces an explicit statement such as 'I am assuming [State X] because [stated reason] — please confirm or correct before I pr…

An associate is advising a California-resident software engineer whose former New York-headquartered employer is asserting breach of a signed non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreement. Both states are named in a single query …

The research plan explicitly identifies both California and New York as implicated jurisdictions. It sequences a choice-of-law analysis step — examining which state's law governs under the contract's choice-of-law clause and conflict-of-laws principles — as step 1 or step 2, before any substantive …

An associate advises a client who was verbally promised enhanced severance by their employer during a reduction in force. The employer's written plan pays a lower amount. The associate asks only about state contract claims — fede…

The plan includes an explicit step — sequenced before or in parallel with state contract claims — to investigate whether the employer's severance arrangement constitutes an ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The plan notes that ERISA § 514 broadly preempts s…