Skip to main content
Name a legal question or doctrine and Anara maps the key authorities in your library, identifies which support your position and which complicate it, and drafts the argument section with proper citation structure. For attorneys who need to move from research to a written argument without the manual reorganization step.

​
1. Describe the task

The research is done. You have the cases, the statutes, the secondary sources. What takes time now is the organization step: which authorities are foundational, which are supporting, which are the ones you need to distinguish, and how do they chain together into an argument a court will follow. Anara reads across your uploaded library and maps the authorities for you. You name the legal question or doctrine, tell Anara the position you are arguing, and Anara identifies which uploaded sources support that position, which complicate or undermine it, and how the precedents relate to each other. Then you ask it to draft the argument section, using the mapped authorities in the order that builds the strongest argument. The research capability reaches published legal scholarship and web-accessible case law. For paywalled databases like Westlaw and LexisNexis, supply the cases to your library and Anara works from what you have provided. Here an appellate attorney is preparing a brief on the preemption of state consumer protection claims by federal banking law and needs to move from a stack of uploaded cases and law review articles to a drafted argument section before the end of the week. 
I am drafting the preemption argument for an appellate brief. My position: federal banking regulations under the National Bank Act preempt the plaintiff's state consumer protection claims in this case.

My library contains the key cases and secondary sources. Please do the following: (1) Identify which uploaded authorities are foundational for the preemption analysis, the Supreme Court and circuit decisions that establish the doctrine. (2) Map which uploaded sources support my preemption argument and which complicate it or cut against it. (3) Draft the preemption section of the argument, roughly 600 words, in standard legal brief style with citations. Use the strongest supporting authorities in the opening, address the complicating authorities before the court does, and close with the application to our specific facts.

​
2. Give Anara context

Required context
  • Your uploaded library of cases, statutes, and secondary sources relevant to the legal question.
  • Your position: which side of the doctrine you are arguing. Anara maps the authorities toward the argument you are making, not toward a neutral survey.
Optional context
  • The specific facts of your case, in a one-paragraph description. Anara uses this to apply the authorities to your particular situation rather than arguing the doctrine in the abstract.
  • Opposing counsel’s likely arguments if you know them. “They will rely on X case and argue Y” tells Anara which authorities to address and how to frame the distinction.

​
3. What Anara creates

A map of the authorities organized by their relationship to your argument, followed by a drafted argument section with inline citations. Review the map before the draft: confirm foundational cases, check that complicating authorities are addressed, adjust the framing if the logic chain has a gap.

​
4. Follow-up prompts

​
Map the argument as a visual flowchart

When the authority chain is complex and you want to see the logic before you draft. 
Draw a text-based argument flowchart showing how the preemption authorities chain together: which decisions established the doctrine, which extended it, which created the exceptions, and where my case fits. Use arrows or indentation to show the relationship between each authority.

​
Distinguish an adverse case

When the other side will lean on a case you need to address. 
Opposing counsel will rely on Watters v. Wachovia Bank. Based on the cases in my library and the facts of my case, draft a paragraph distinguishing Watters on its facts and reasoning. Explain why the rule in Watters does not control here.

​
Check the argument against current circuit precedent

When you want to verify the authority map is current before filing. 
Search for any circuit court decisions from the last three years that address National Bank Act preemption of state consumer protection claims. Are there any developments that would change the argument I have drafted?

​
5. Tricks, tips, and troubleshooting

​
How you word your prompt shapes what you get

State your position before asking for the authority map. “Map the preemption authorities for the position that federal law preempts these state claims” is more useful than a neutral survey. Name the standard of review if it shapes the argument: strict scrutiny and rational basis change which authorities are load-bearing. The more specific the doctrinal framing, the more targeted the authority selection.

​
Check the output against your own understanding

Anara draws from your library and web-accessible legal materials. If a key case is behind a paywall and you have not uploaded it, Anara may discuss it from secondary sources. Verify any case you plan to cite against the primary opinion. Ask for Bluebook format explicitly if required; check pinpoint citations before the brief goes out.

​
What to do with the output next

Read the draft for logical structure first, then citation accuracy, then tone. Circuit briefs, trial court motions, and state court practice each have distinct registers. Where the draft reads too academic, ask Anara to revise toward your court’s expected voice. Once the section is structurally sound, integrate it and run a final citation check.