Recently, I’ve been thinking about the annotated code. As both a legal research instructor and a library director, I regularly reflect on legal research resources, but lately, the annotated code has caught my attention more than others. I worry that this essential source for legal research is being overlooked.

Throughout my career, which spans over 20 years, the annotated code has been a stalwart of legal research. I refer to it as a “gold standard” and describe it to students as a “hybrid of primary and secondary sources” designed to help researchers save time and accurately apply statutory law. But even with this high praise, I still find students are ambivalent about its utility in legal research.

It’s not hard to see where this ambivalence might be coming from. Newer research tools provide quick answers, making it easy to overlook a source that requires a slower, more thoughtful approach. Some might attribute that ambivalence to a particular generation of researchers. However, regardless of generation, most of us have become accustomed to finding quick answers and expecting the correct answer to appear among the top 10 results on a list (or on the first page of Google).

Yet, many legal issues, particularly in statutory research, don’t lend themselves to a quick Google search approach. Therefore, my goal with this article is to reexamine the annotated code, explore its ongoing usefulness, and, hopefully, generate some enthusiasm for the underrated annotated code.

WHAT IS THE ANNOTATED CODE?

Most legal research textbooks define a statutory code, whether annotated or not, as a collection of current statutes of general and permanent application arranged by subject.¹ Thus, all statutory codes share some common characteristics. They include the current text of the laws, including any amendments. They are organized into a subject matter hierarchy, and they include historical notes that aid the researcher in tracking the historical development of the statutes. All these features enable researchers to easily access and navigate a jurisdiction’s statutory law.

These features lay the groundwork for statutory research, but interpreting what a statute actually means — and how it applies in practice — requires more than just finding its text. In many situations, researchers must consult case law to fully understand the application and meaning of a statute. This is where the annotated code distinguishes itself as the “gold standard” source for statutory research. One of the key characteristics of the annotated code is the inclusion of abstracts from interpretive judicial decisions, commonly known as annotations.

These case annotations serve as important extrinsic aids in determining the meaning and legislative intent of statutory law.² Selected for their relevance by a code’s editors,³ they represent the cases deemed the best for discerning the meaning and application of a statute. Their inclusion in the annotated code is deliberate and designed to make research more efficient for busy law students and attorneys.

In addition to the case annotations, annotated codes integrate other interpretive sources, such as cross-references and notes to relevant secondary sources, administrative code sections, administrative decisions and legislative history materials.

Thus, the annotated code represents an amalgamation of complementary sources that serves as a one-stop shop for researching statutory law. The annotated code eliminates the need to spend time sifting through separate sources and determining their relevance to the research. For the most part, the editors have taken care of that for the researcher.

In a world where time is money, the annotated code enables attorneys to work smarter and more efficiently.⁴

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE ANNOTATED CODE

Despite the many benefits of an annotated code, why does it continue to be underappreciated? I think there are several reasons for this, including reflexive use of search bars, a preference for simplicity, and students’ preference for case law.⁵

One of the main reasons researchers may tend to disregard the annotated code is that it requires a methodical multistep approach to research — an approach overshadowed by quick Google-like searches and generative (GAI) technologies that many have come to rely on. Many of us have become so accustomed to using search bars that we reflexively start typing when we see one. But this shortcut mindset can be counterproductive when working with statutes because the annotated code rewards a slower, more deliberate approach — which, ironically, can save time in the long run.

Additionally, while the annotated code is functionally a primary source, the added cross-references to secondary sources can sometimes confuse researchers about whether the annotated code is a primary or secondary source. In legal research, the goal is to locate primary sources that directly address the legal issue as quickly and efficiently as possible. However, editorial enhancements — such as case notes, commentary, and references to treatises — can cause some researchers to overlook the fact that the statutory text itself constitutes binding law.⁶ This may lead some researchers to seek out more simplistic, less efficient sources as they focus on finding primary law.

For law students, codes may be overlooked because of the heavy emphasis on studying case law in law school.⁷ This focus often downplays the role of statutory law in legal research, leading students to shy away from statutory-based research tools.

HOW WILL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) IMPACT THE ANNOTATED CODE?

I’m certainly not a futurist or an expert on GAI tools; however, given my basic understanding of how GAI works, I believe the annotated code will continue to be a valuable and necessary tool in statutory research.

One of the drawbacks of GAI for legal research is that it can “hallucinate,” meaning it erroneously describes or even invents sources. The GAI technology is not malicious; it just doesn’t know any better. It is trained to identify patterns in language, so the answer it provides is based on a likelihood that the next word or phrase will be correct according to the data it has trained on. It does not understand that a case is a unique thing. It simply sees a case as a string of words. Additionally, GAI’s conversational style may not be a good fit for statutory research, where precision of language is vital to accurately understanding the meaning of the law. As one author put it, “in law ‘almost correct’ is a liability, not an improvement. A single hallucination [or miswording] can turn an accurate statement … into a misleading one.”⁸

As attorneys and law students continue to integrate GAI tools into their legal research, whether these tools are part of platforms like Westlaw and Lexis or are stand-alone sources like ChatGPT, there will be a need to verify the results. Reliable and accurate sources, such as the annotated code, will remain essential. Just as researchers verify statutory language when referenced in a secondary source, they must apply the same diligence with GAI.

While I expect GAI tools will continue to impact the way we do research, I think the integration of AI in legal research will evolve incrementally. If anything, I expect some form of annotated code will exist, since the need to consult interpretive judicial decisions will always be a key to comprehensive statutory research.

CONCLUSION

I hope my ode to the annotated code inspired and/or reassured you; that is, I inspired you to give it a second look or reassured you that it still holds relevance in a world of ever-evolving research technologies.⁹