cocounsel-legal:case-law-monitor

Case Law Monitor

Sets up and runs proactive monitoring for new case law developments on a topic, in specified jurisdictions. Produces periodic digest reports summarizing new decisions, their holdings, and their practical impact.

Prerequisites

The cocounsel-legal MCP server must be connected. Verify before starting. If not connected, inform the user and stop.

When to Use

• User wants to track an evolving area of law for new decisions
• User says "alert me when there's a new ruling on…"
• User wants a periodic digest of new case law in a practice area
• User is monitoring a statute for new interpretation or application
• User wants to know when a circuit split develops or resolves

When Not to Use

• Checking the current status of specific citations — use cocounsel-legal:citation-verification
• Monitoring specific relied-on cases for negative treatment — use the authority-tracker managed agent
• One-time research — use cocounsel-legal:deep-research
• Comparing how jurisdictions currently treat an issue — use cocounsel-legal:jurisdiction-comparison

Communication Rules

• Never mention tool calls, conversation IDs, or implementation details
• Present new developments in plain, professional language
• When reporting a new decision, state the holding, the court, and the practical significance — the attorney decides what to do with it
• Flag decisions that may conflict with the user's established position using [review]

Monitoring Workflow

1. Define the watch topic

Collect:

Input	Required	Example
Topic or legal issue	Yes	"Non-compete enforceability for remote workers"
Jurisdictions	Yes (up to 3)	"California, Delaware, Federal"
Scope refinement	No	"Only appellate decisions", "Only published opinions"
Relevance filter	No	"Focus on technology sector employees"
Baseline date	No	"Since January 2025" (default: last 30 days)

If the user's topic is too broad (e.g., "employment law"), suggest narrowing: "That's a broad topic. Want to focus on a specific issue like non-compete enforceability, trade secret misappropriation, or wage-and-hour classification?"

2. Run baseline research

Run legal_research_start_deep_research(query, jurisdictions) with a query framed for recent developments:

• Query pattern: "Recent [court level] decisions on [topic] in [jurisdictions] since [baseline date], focusing on new holdings, shifts in interpretation, or emerging trends"
• Follow the standard deep-research polling workflow

This establishes the current state of the law as the baseline against which new developments are measured.

3. Extract the current landscape

From the baseline research report, extract:

• Controlling authority — the current leading cases by jurisdiction
• Current rule / standard — how the issue is currently resolved
• Open questions — areas where the law is unsettled, circuit splits, pending cases
• Trend direction — which way the law appears to be moving

Present as a landscape summary:

## Case Law Landscape: [Topic]

**As of:** [date]
**Jurisdictions:** [list]

### Current state of the law

[2-3 paragraph summary of where things stand]

### Controlling authority by jurisdiction

| Jurisdiction | Leading case | Holding | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Jur. 1] | [cite] | [one-line holding] | [date] |

### Open questions

- [Question 1 — e.g., "No appellate decision yet on remote-worker
  non-competes in Delaware"]
- [Question 2]

### Trend

[Direction the law is moving, if discernible]

4. Configure the monitor

Confirm the monitoring parameters with the user:

"Here's what I'll monitor:

• Topic: [topic]
• Jurisdictions: [list]
• Scope: [any filters]
• Check frequency: [suggest based on topic volatility — weekly for active areas, monthly for stable ones]

I'll run a Deep Research query on this topic at each check and compare against the baseline to identify new developments. Want me to set this up?"

Save the monitor configuration to the authority watch list in the research profile.

5. Run a check (on-demand or scheduled)

When running a monitoring check (manually or via scheduled trigger):

1. Run Deep Research on the watch topic with the same jurisdictions
2. Compare the results against the baseline landscape
3. Identify new decisions, changed holdings, or new developments
4. Classify each development:

Classification	Meaning	Action
New controlling authority	A new binding decision	[review] — may change legal position
Trend confirmation	New decision follows existing trend	Note, no flag
Trend reversal	Decision goes against the trend	[review] — flag for attorney
Circuit split	Jurisdictions now disagree	[review] — note the split
Statutory change	Legislature acted on the topic	[review] — may supersede case law

6. Present the digest

## Case Law Monitor Digest: [Topic]

**Period:** [last check date] to [this check date]
**Jurisdictions:** [list]

### New developments

| # | Decision | Court | Date | Classification | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [cite] | [court] | [date] | [type] | [one-line] |

### Details

#### 1. [Case name]

**Holding:** [one paragraph]

**Significance:** [why this matters for the monitored topic]

**Impact on prior position:** [how this changes or confirms the
baseline landscape] `[review]`

### Updated landscape

[If the landscape has materially changed, provide an updated summary.
If not: "No material change to the baseline landscape."]

7. Offer follow-ups

• "Want me to run a full Deep Research query on any of these new decisions?" (routes to cocounsel-legal:deep-research)
• "Want me to check if any of these new decisions affect your cited authorities?" (routes to cocounsel-legal:citation-verification)
• "Want me to draft an updated argument section incorporating the new authority?" (routes to cocounsel-legal:research-brief)
• "Want me to adjust the monitoring scope or jurisdictions?"
• "Want me to send this digest to a Slack channel?" (if Slack is configured)