> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://support.vlex.com/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://support.vlex.com/vincent-by-vlex-1/vincent-studio/creating-and-managing-ai-workflows-in-vincent-studio/add-legal-research-as-a-step-in-your-studio-workflow.md). # Add Legal Research as a Step in Your Studio Workflow Add the Run legal research action to a Studio workflow so a task can answer a legal question from the vLex Library and return a summary with citations. #### Summary Add the **Run legal research** action to a Studio workflow so a task can answer a legal question from the vLex Library and return a summary with citations that later steps can use. #### Why This is Important Until now, Studio workflows could work *with* documents but could not answer a question *about the law*. That gap forced a break in the process: a paralegal ran the workflow, hit the point where the analysis needed an actual legal standard, and had to leave Studio, open Vincent, run the research, and paste the result back in. The **Run legal research** action closes that break. A workflow can now establish the governing rule and then apply it to the client's documents in the same run, which is how the work is actually done. This is the difference between a workflow that processes paper and one that reaches a legal conclusion. It also changes what you are responsible for as a builder. A workflow that only summarizes documents is bounded by the documents. A workflow that performs research reaches beyond them, into a body of law with a specific scope and specific limits. The rest of this article covers those limits, because they determine whether your workflow is safe to publish. #### Before You Begin * Confirm that the jurisdiction your workflow serves is covered by Vincent's research workflows. See [Jurisdiction Coverage: Check This Before You Publish](/vincent-by-vlex/vincent/support-and-account-administration/managing-your-default-jurisdictions.md) below. This is the single most common reason a research step disappoints. * Know the question you want the step to answer. A research step performs best against a well-defined question, not an open-ended prompt. #### How to Add the Run Legal Research Action 1. Open the workflow you want to edit, or create a new one, and go to the step where you configure tasks. 2. Create a new task, or select the task you want to convert into a research step. 3. In the **Action Type** selector, choose **Run legal research**. 4. Define the research question for the step. Write it as a specific legal question, not as a general instruction. `What are the notice requirements for terminating a commercial lease for non-payment?` will perform far better than `Research lease law`. 5. Configure how the question relates to the user's input. If the question should incorporate a detail from an uploaded document or an earlier task, reference that upstream output rather than hard-coding a value. 6. Position the research step *before* the tasks that depend on its conclusion. The summary and citations it returns become available to downstream steps only after it runs. 7. Save the task and test the workflow end to end with a realistic document before publishing.

The Run legal research action added to a task in the Studio workflow builder.

{% hint style="info" %} **Action Type versus Prompt, again.** As with every task in Studio, the **Action Type** is the tool and the prompt is the instruction. Choosing **Run legal research** tells Studio to go to the law. The question you write tells it what to look for. For a full comparison of the available tools, see [Understanding Action Types in Studio](/vincent-by-vlex-1/vincent-studio/creating-and-managing-ai-workflows-in-vincent-studio/understanding-action-types-in-vincent-studio.md). {% endhint %} #### What the Step Returns The research step produces two outputs, and both matter for how you build the rest of the workflow. * **A summary** of the answer to the question you defined. Downstream tasks can consume this summary as context, which is what lets a later step apply the standard to the client's facts. * **Citations** to the authorities the answer draws on, logged for traceability so a reviewer can follow the reasoning back to source. Responses carry the standard Vincent research disclaimer, and human review remains part of the process by default. #### Jurisdiction Coverage: Check This Before You Publish This is the constraint most likely to surprise you, and it deserves attention before you build. Workflows that operate on documents the user uploads are **not** limited by jurisdiction. You can analyze, summarize, or compare a document from any country. Research is different: Vincent's research workflows are optimized for a defined set of jurisdictions, and the **Run legal research** action inherits that scope. The practical consequence: **adding a research step imposes a jurisdictional limit on a workflow that did not previously have one.** A document-analysis workflow serving a client in a country outside the supported list works fine today. Add a research step to it and that step is now the weak link, even though the rest of the workflow is unchanged. Before you publish a workflow containing a research step: * Confirm the target jurisdiction appears on the current supported list. See [Viewing Vincent Coverage by Jurisdiction](/vincent-by-vlex/vincent/getting-started-with-vincent/viewing-vincent-coverage-by-jurisdiction.md) for the list and the live coverage detail. * If the jurisdiction is not on the list, do not add a research step to that workflow. Keep it document-based, and handle the legal standard through a **workflow asset** instead: upload your firm's own memo or playbook on the point, and let a **Prompt with Context** task apply it. * If your workflow serves several countries, remember that coverage is not uniform across them. A workflow published organization-wide may perform well for one office and poorly for another. {% hint style="info" %} **Coverage expands over time.** The supported list reflects core coverage at a point in time and is not static. For current, detailed content availability in a specific region, speak with a product specialist rather than assuming from an older version of this page. {% endhint %} #### Verify the Output Before You Rely On It A research step returns citations, which makes its output look more authoritative than a summary of an uploaded document. Treat that appearance as a reason for more scrutiny, not less. * **Open the citations.** The value of the step is that it shows its sources; that value is only realized when someone follows them. Confirm the authority exists, says what the summary claims, and is still good law. * **Check the authority is current.** A correctly cited case that has since been criticized or overturned is still a wrong answer. Use the vLex Library's treatment indicators to confirm status. * **Be more careful with narrow or specialized questions.** The more specific the point of law and the less well covered the jurisdiction, the more important direct verification becomes. * **Keep a human in the loop by design.** If the workflow's output goes to a client or a court, build a review task into the workflow rather than relying on the end user to remember. #### Best Practices & Pro Tips * **Establish the rule, then apply it.** The strongest pattern for a research-enabled workflow is two tasks in sequence: a research step that establishes the legal standard, followed by a **Prompt with Context** task that applies that standard to the client's documents. Separating the two makes the output easier to review, because a reviewer can check the law and the application independently instead of untangling both from one block of text. * **Pin down the question at build time, not run time.** The research step performs best against a well-defined question. Writing that question yourself, as the builder, is where your legal expertise enters the workflow. Leaving it to the end user to phrase means the quality of every run depends on whoever happens to be using the tool. * **Do not use a research step where a workflow asset is the better answer.** If your firm has already settled a recurring question, your own memo is a more reliable and more consistent source than fresh research on every run. Reserve the research step for questions that genuinely vary by matter. ### Related Articles * [Getting Started with Vincent Studio Workflows](/vincent-by-vlex-1/vincent-studio/getting-started-with-studio-workflows.md) * [How to Publish and Share Your Vincent Studio Workflow](/vincent-by-vlex-1/vincent-studio/creating-and-managing-ai-workflows-in-vincent-studio/how-to-publish-and-share-your-vincent-studio-workflow.md) ### Unlock the Power of Legal Automation Ready to see how Vincent Studio can transform your firm's efficiency? [**Contact our sales team for a personalized demo today.**](https://vlex.com/book-a-demo?utm_source=website\&utm_medium=organic\&utm_campaign=web_trial_homepage\&campaign_id=4270741) **What's Your Next Step?** | **New to Vincent Studio?** | **Already a Vincent Studio Customer?** | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | [See how Vincent can transform your practice. **Request a personalized demo**.](https://vlex.com/book-a-demo?utm_source=website\&utm_medium=organic\&utm_campaign=web_trial_homepage\&campaign_id=4270741) | [If you still have questions or need help with a specific feature, our team is here to assist. **Contact our Support team**.](https://vlex.com/contact-us) |