---
pdf_options:
format: Letter
margin:
top: 1in
bottom: 0.8in
left: 0.9in
right: 0.9in
printBackground: true
displayHeaderFooter: true
headerTemplate: ''
footerTemplate: 'Sanoj Allen · Founder · sanoj@sheplegal.com · (678) 939-4428
Confidential
An editorial project to design, curate, and launch a searchable case brief library integrated with SHEP's practice platform.
## The Opportunity
Every law student needs case briefs. Quimbee has 47,100 of them and charges $15/month — but they're a passive study tool. Students read the brief and move on.
SHEP can connect the brief to practice. A student reads the brief for *Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad*, understands the proximate cause doctrine, and then immediately practices applying it to a new fact pattern with AI-powered feedback. Read the rule, then use the rule. No other platform does this.
The case brief library also serves as a distribution engine. Students search for case names every day. Each SHEP brief that ranks in Google is a door into the platform.
## What Already Exists
A master list of **250+ canonical 1L cases** has been compiled from five open sources (Justia Case Law Outlines, CALI eLangdell, Cambridge Coaching, UMN Law Library, Stetson Law), organized by subject with legal principles identified. The research is done. The editorial work is what's needed.
AI will generate the bulk of the briefs from this list. The role of the editor is to **design the format, set the quality standard, and ensure accuracy** — not to write 250 briefs by hand.
## The SHEP Brief Format
Each case brief follows a consistent structure. The editor defines and refines this format by writing exemplar briefs that become the template for AI-generated content.
| Section | Purpose |
|---------|---------|
| **Case Name & Citation** | Full name, reporter citation, year, court |
| **Facts** | 3-5 sentence summary of key facts |
| **Issue** | The legal question, stated as a question |
| **Holding** | The court's answer — one clear statement |
| **Reasoning** | Why the court decided this way (2-4 sentences) |
| **Rule of Law** | The doctrinal takeaway students need to know |
| **Practice Connection** | Link to a SHEP scenario that tests the same legal principle |
The final field is what makes SHEP briefs different from Quimbee. Every brief points to practice.
## Project Scope
### Editor-in-Chief Role
| | |
|---|---|
| **Project** | Design and launch the SHEP Case Brief Library |
| **Total commitment** | ~10 hours |
| **Duration** | 2-3 weeks |
| **Compensation** | Discussed separately |
### Work Breakdown
| Task | Hours | Output |
|------|-------|--------|
| **Design the brief format** | 1.5 | Define structure, tone, length, and what differentiates a SHEP brief from Quimbee. Decide what the "Practice Connection" field looks like. |
| **Write 10 exemplar briefs** | 3.0 | Hand-written briefs across multiple subjects that set the editorial voice and quality bar. These become the template for AI generation. |
| **Review AI-generated briefs** | 2.5 | Spot-check 30-40 AI-generated briefs for accuracy of holdings, completeness of reasoning, and tone consistency. Flag errors and approve the batch. |
| **Tag top 50 cases** | 2.0 | Add doctrine tags, search keywords, and Practice Connection links for the highest-priority cases. Identify where new practice scenarios should be created. |
| **Alignment calls** | 1.0 | Format review, feedback, and iteration with the founder. |
| **Total** | **~10 hours** | |
### Production Pipeline
1. **Editor writes 10 exemplar briefs** (the gold standard)
2. **AI generates ~240 remaining briefs** using the exemplars as a style guide + the master case list
3. **Editor reviews a sample** for accuracy and consistency
4. **Editor tags the top 50** with search metadata and practice connections
5. **Briefs go live** in the SHEP Law Library, searchable and linked to scenarios
## What the Editor Decides
- **Format:** What goes in a SHEP brief that competitors don't have? How long should they be? Should they include concurrence/dissent summaries or just the majority?
- **Tone:** Accessible and direct, or formal and academic? SHEP briefs should feel different from reading a casebook.
- **Priority:** Which cases matter most for current 1Ls? The master list has 250+ — the editor decides the order.
- **Quality gate:** Where are the AI-generated briefs wrong, misleading, or missing nuance? The editor is the final check before publication.
- **Practice connections:** For each tagged case, which SHEP scenario tests the same rule? Where does a new scenario need to be built?
## Where Briefs Live in SHEP
Briefs appear in the **Law Library** alongside 340 legal rules across 11 domains. When a student searches for a case:
1. The case brief appears (facts, holding, rule of law)
2. The related legal rule surfaces from the Law Library
3. Practice scenarios testing the same doctrine are linked
4. Any of the student's own saved work on that doctrine is connected
## Competitive Context
| | Quimbee | SHEP |
|---|---------|------|
| Briefs | 47,100 | 250+ at launch (1L canon) |
| Price | $15/mo | Free during beta |
| Written by | Humans (JD authors) | AI-generated, human-edited |
| Format | Text + video | Text + linked practice scenarios |
| Practice | Multiple choice (6,800 MCQs) | Full written analysis with AI feedback |
| Integration | Standalone study aid | Briefs → rules → scenarios → evaluation |
The goal is not to match Quimbee's volume. The 1L canon is ~250-300 cases — the entire universe that matters for the first year of law school. A smaller, more integrated library that connects reading to practice is more valuable than a larger library that doesn't.