One of the first courses I took in law school was legal research and writing. Certainly, the formal rules of citation to express the precise location of the source of information used in a writing was a part of the course. We were taught to use the “Blue Book”1 as a guide to these rules. However, we learned that these rules might differ slightly depending on whether the writing was a scholarly article or a practice document for submission to a court. There were even potential differences in citation and format rules in different jurisdictions and different courts.
The legal research and writing course also addressed the process to thoroughly investigate and uncover all relevant and current material about a particular subject. A research resource known as Shepard’s was my “go to” in law school to find all cases that cite the case or document being investigated. The purpose of “Shepardizing” was to try to ensure that a case, statute or rule was still good law and that the most current information was reviewed and considered. This was a laborious and time-consuming manual process when I was in law school. However, an online Shepards citation service is now available from LexisNexis2 as well as an online citation service from Westlaw3.
Aside from the details of formal citation and the “Shepardizing” process, I found an overarching theme of the research and writing course to be most impactful: legally persuasive written arguments involved ranking the priority of various sources of information. Two examples:
· Statements about a particular controversy from a published U.S. Supreme Court case opinion might normally take precedence over different, contrary or inconsistent statements from the published opinion of the same or possibly a similar controversy in a lower court.
· Also, facts and statements from more authoritative sources, such as from a federal or state statute might have priority over different, contrary or inconsistent facts and statements found in less authoritative sources such as essays with opinions about the statute.
I believe this concept of prioritizing information found from more authoritative sources over that derived from less authoritative sources to be especially prescient in today’s world.
In the days before the internet, when information was needed about a particular financial subject, an encyclopedia might be consulted. Or there might be a trip to the local library for more resources. Possibly a broker would be consulted. Certainly, family and friends would weigh in. In addition, there were financial courses available, often from various companies selling securities. It seemed simpler at that time to understand the potential likelihood of a conflict of interest or whether information was being shaded to encourage a particular point of view.
Today, a vast amount of information is available using internet search engines. The volume and velocity of information coming at us on social media or in pop-up ads without even searching for it can make it seem overwhelming. How do we apply the concept of authoritative source prioritization in this time of unrestrained information? How do we know what an authoritative source is and how would we identify it? Even if one is identified, couldn’t there be claims on the internet that this authoritative source is not authoritative as it was prepared by someone with a bias? Just as the volume and velocity of information is accelerating, ways to access this information are changing as well. The advent of artificial intelligence may be denting Google as the “go to” search engine. The Wall Street Journal recently opined that now “Googling is For Old People”.5
One of the ways to try to secure information from authoritative financial sources may be to prioritize professional service forums over social media. Professional forums may make available expertise while social media sites may not reflect expertise and often consist of people posting advice and information anonymously and without accountability4.
There are also some basic, common sense and logical guidelines that may act as information gathering and assessment boundaries.
· Simplicity and clarity should be prioritized over the appearance of technical sophistication, word salad and disclosure through obfuscation. If you don’t understand the information being given and it can’t be satisfactorily explained, convincing you to act on it should be a hard sell6.
· When trying to verify the source of information, always ask yourself who might benefit from the decision you might make as a result of receiving the information. If a significant beneficiary is the source, that doesn't necessarily mean the information is wrong or corrupt, but it should introduce the need for corroboration from a disinterested source with no potential conflict or underlying agenda.
The information overload we all experience today can make it difficult to determine what is reliable, valuable financial information and what isn’t. Common sense is invaluable as is a relationship with a trusted advisor such as the Family Wealth Decisions Group who can help identify the relevant information you need to make financial decisions. If you are confused about financial information you are reviewing or some aspect of your financial life, call us. We’d love to talk with you.
1. See: https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=261289&p=2339384 and https://www.legalbluebook.com/ for more information about the Blue Book.
4. https://interactivelegal.com/complimentary-webinars-2/#TheSource
5. https://www.wsj.com/tech/googling-is-for-old-people-thats-a-problem-for-google-5188a6ed
6. https://www.wealthmanagement.com/marketing/clarity-competitive-edge
CRN-7489773-010225