We are seeking an experienced legal researcher for an ongoing relationship supporting federal criminal defense work. The immediate assignment involves sentencing research for an 18 U.S.C. §1014 case in the Tenth Circuit, related to PPP/EIDL loans. Additional assignments expected on a continuing basis for the right person.
We need someone who is exceptionally skilled at finding the right cases — not just running searches, but identifying the cases that actually matter, recognizing factual parallels, and delivering results that are precise and well-organized. Producing volume is easy. Producing the 10 cases that win the argument is the skill we're looking for.
This is a research-only engagement. You will locate, verify, brief, and organize case law and other legal authority. You will not draft arguments or develop strategy. If you also have experience with legal writing or strategic analysis, let us know separately — there may be additional work beyond research.
THE IMMEDIATE ASSIGNMENT COVERS FEDERAL CRIMINAL SENTENCING RESEARCH ACROSS THESE AREAS (TIME-SENSITIVE — MUST DELIVER ASAP):
- U.S. Supreme Court case briefing (2025 term decisions on §1014 and related statutes)
- Tenth Circuit relevant conduct case law (§1B1.3, JUCA analysis, Amendment 810, "mere association" defense)
- PPP/EIDL fraud sentencing survey — loss calculation, cross-statute relevant conduct, non-custodial sentences, eligible borrower defense, repayment credits
- §1014 false statement — mental state distinctions
- Plea stipulation interpretation
- Mitigation research — aberrant behavior (§5K2.20), extraordinary family circumstances (§5H1.6), below-guidelines sentencing data
- Probation officer obligations and neutrality standards
- Citation verification (~25 citations, some potentially AI-generated fabrications)
- Judicial sentencing profile
REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS
- Active Westlaw or Lexis Nexis subscription — you must have your own current access. Academic or limited-content plans will not be sufficient for this work.
- PACER account — needed for federal court document retrieval
- Federal criminal research experience — you must have hands-on experience researching federal criminal sentencing issues, not just federal civil litigation. Familiarity with the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is required — particularly §1B1.3 (relevant conduct), §2B1.1 (fraud loss calculation), and §3553(a) (variance arguments). If these terms are not part of your regular vocabulary, this is not the right project.
- Demonstrated ability to find, verify, and brief cases accurately with proper pin cites and Shepard's/KeyCite analysis. Credentials (J.D., paralegal certificate) matter less than proven research skill.
Strongly preferred:
- Prior experience researching PPP loan fraud, EIDL fraud, or CARES Act sentencing cases. If you have this, say so — it directly affects how quickly you can deliver.
- Tenth Circuit case law familiarity
Please answer the following questions in your proposal to be considered.
Q1 — Tools & Access. Do you have active access to (a) Westlaw or Lexis Nexis, and PACER? This is a hard requirement.
Q2 — Background & Experience. Briefly describe your legal research experience, including years of experience and the areas listed below. Case names can be redacted.
- Federal vs. state; criminal vs. civil
- Federal criminal sentencing — how many matters, and in what role
- U.S. Sentencing Guidelines research (§1B1.3 relevant conduct, §2B1.1 loss calculation, §3553(a) variance)
- PPP, EIDL, or CARES Act fraud (if any)
Q3 — Research Judgment. When a set of Westlaw searches returns 40+ results for a PPP fraud sentencing survey, how do you decide which 10–15 cases are the most relevant? Walk us through your actual process — not a textbook answer, but how you actually work.
Q4 — Availability, Turnaround & Rate. What is your hourly rate? How many hours per week can you dedicate to this? How quickly can you start?
Q5 — Sample & References Provide (a) a redacted sample of prior legal research work product showing case briefs with pin cites and KeyCite/Shepard's analysis, and (b) at least one attorney reference.
.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
— Michael
...
Show more