## **Learning Outcomes**

This article covers synthesising and summarising findings for SQE2 analysis and reporting, including:

- Combining multiple legal sources to produce a coherent, reasoned conclusion
- Identifying core issues, material facts, and outcomes relevant to advice
- Presenting relevant law and facts clearly to support exam-standard recommendations
- Assessing authority weight, hierarchy, and status; using neutral citations and preferred report series
- Weighing binding versus persuasive authorities and explaining their limits and subsequent treatment
- Recording sources, citations, edition/dates, and update checks to confirm currency
- Differentiating relevant from irrelevant material to keep reports focused and concise
- Structuring concise written advice that separates what is certain, arguable, and unresolved
- Converting extensive material into short, accurate summaries that set out issue, rule, application, and conclusion
- Stating conclusions with caveats, risks, and practical next steps tailored to the client or supervisor

## **SQE2 Syllabus**

For SQE2, you are required to understand how to analyse and report findings in legal research, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- summarising and synthesising legal rules, authorities, and factual findings from multiple sources
- identifying key issues and relevant law when reviewing large volumes of material
- presenting clear, concise conclusions and recommendations, tailored to the needs of a hypothetical client or supervising solicitor
- differentiating between relevant and irrelevant information, focusing on exam-style written advice and reporting
- structuring findings using appropriate headings, summaries, and logical sequences to support effective legal advice
- assessing authority weight and citation: preferring the Law Reports series where available, using neutral citations, and avoiding over-proliferation of authorities
- recording citations and edition/dates of sources; confirming currency using citators and legislation analysis
- flagging risks, ambiguities, and outstanding factual gaps; identifying practical next steps

## **Test Your Knowledge**

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. What does it mean to "synthesise" legal findings in a case research report?
2. Why is it important to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant facts when summarising your research?
3. In reporting findings for SQE2, what is the key difference between a summary and a synthesis?
4. Name two features of a well-structured written report in the context of legal research.

## **Introduction**

Legal research for SQE2 does not end with finding authorities. You must be able to analyse, combine, and present your findings in a way that supports practical legal advice. This includes accurately identifying and combining key issues, facts, and law, and writing your advice in a clear, concise, and structured manner. This article will focus on synthesising and summarising findings, as well as best practices for SQE2 assessment-style written reports. The emphasis is on:

- extracting the governing principle from cases and statutes and applying it to new facts
- reconciling or explaining conflicts in authorities and indicating which is most persuasive
- distinguishing essential from non-essential facts to produce concise, client-focused advice
- presenting outcomes with reasons, uncertainties, and action points

> **Key Term: Synthesis**
> The process of integrating information from multiple sources, identifying connections, and producing a coherent, original conclusion that addresses the legal issue.
>
> **Key Term: Relevant Authority**
> Any legal source that has direct impact on the issues in your research and supports or opposes your client's position.

## Synthesising Findings

Synthesis requires you to combine material from different sources or evidential strands to form a single, reasoned answer to the legal problem.

A robust approach to synthesis involves:

- clarifying the question to be answered and the material facts that matter
- listing potential authorities (statutes, cases, procedural rules, commentary) and noting their status (court level, date, jurisdiction, whether subsequently applied/distinguished/overruled)
- extracting the ratio decidendi (governing principle) from each authority and noting any limits or exceptions
- identifying points of consistency (shared principles) and points of tension (conflicting outcomes or tests)
- reconciling differences by hierarchy (higher court decisions prevail), date, and subject specificity; if conflicts remain, reason which line of authority is most likely to be followed and explain why
- applying the combined principle to the client’s facts and concluding with a defensible position (with probabilities or ranges where appropriate)

When you synthesise, you should look for patterns, consistencies, or points of conflict between authorities or facts. Highlight similarities and differences, then produce a clear answer justified by reasons. Use neutral citations and preferred report series where available, and indicate subsequent treatment using a citator. Where an authority is persuasive but not binding (e.g., tribunal decisions, foreign cases, journals), explain the relevance and limit.

> **Key Term: Summary**
> A brief statement collecting key facts, legal points, and outcomes, omitting unnecessary detail, to capture only what is essential for the client's or the supervisor's decision.

### **Worked Example 1.1**

You have identified three authorities regarding the enforceability of exclusion clauses. Two support the validity of clauses in consumer contracts with prominent warnings; one authority restricts enforceability where terms are hidden. How should you synthesise these findings in a legal research report?

> **Answer:** Combine the principles: explain that exclusion clauses will generally be enforced where drawn to the user's attention, but the courts will refuse to enforce hidden or unfair terms. Apply this combined conclusion to your client's contract based on the notice given.

To improve the synthesis, add the hierarchy (e.g., Supreme Court/House of Lords decisions trump lower courts), identify statutory overlay (e.g., CRA 2015 fairness test in consumer contracts), and state whether the clause’s prominence in your case is comparable to the enforcing authorities or closer to the “hidden term” line. Conclude with the likely outcome and key risk factors (font size, timing of notice, complexity).

## Summarising Findings

Summarising means presenting the key facts, law, and outcomes in concise form. Avoid irrelevant detail. Focus on what will affect your advice or the decision-maker's reasoning.

Good summaries:

- start with a one-sentence issue statement (“Whether X is liable for Y given Z facts”)
- state the governing rule(s) and authority/section concisely
- apply the rule to the key facts (two to three sentences)
- conclude with a recommendation and any caveats (e.g., missing evidence, unsettled point, need for expert input)
- include essential citations and status notes (e.g., statute in force; case subsequently applied; date of last update)

Summaries are not just lists. Good summaries demonstrate you have selected what is important from the materials, and justify your main conclusion by reference to those points alone. Avoid reproducing headnotes or quotations unless a short phrase is uniquely decisive; always prefer your own distilled analysis.

> **Key Term: Conclusion**
> The final position or recommendation in a report, supported by synthesis and summary, guiding subsequent client action or legal advice.

### **Worked Example 1.2**

A business client sends you a large folder of correspondence, invoices, and prior legal agreements. Your task is to summarise the findings relevant to a potential claim for breach of contract. How should you proceed?

> **Answer:** Identify the main relevant documents (the contract and key correspondence about the breach), ignore irrelevant invoices or emails, and present only the sequence of events and terms relating to the alleged breach. End with a brief summary of the prospects for the client's claim.

For added rigour: extract the contractual clause engaged, confirm formation and variation (if any), note any exclusion or limitation terms, and place dates in a short timeline. Identify whether the breach is repudiatory or minor, indicate remedies (damages, specific performance, termination) and any notice requirements, then state the recommended action (e.g., letter before action) and evidence needed.

## Reporting Findings

SQE2 assessments require clearly written findings. Focus on clear structure, appropriate use of headings, and logical progression from facts to law to advice. Reports should be tailored to the recipient—usually a supervising solicitor—showing an efficient, accurate analysis rather than a data dump.

Core elements of a concise research report:

- instructions (what you were asked and the scope you adopted)
- issue(s) and assumptions (if any)
- relevant law (authorities with short propositions and citations)
- analysis (application to facts and any competing views)
- conclusion (outcome, prospects, risks)
- next steps (e.g., evidence to obtain; draft correspondence; procedural steps)
- citations and update notes (date, source, edition; confirm law in force)
- attachments (only if necessary: key clauses, timelines)

> **Key Term: Legal Report**
> A structured written document which outlines facts, relevant law, an analysis, a synthesis of findings, and a concise conclusion, tailored to the needs of a supervisor or client.

### **Worked Example 1.3**

You need to advise whether there is a defence for your client against a negligence claim. Your sources agree on the three-stage Caparo test but disagree on how "proximity" applies to novel fact patterns. How should you present this to your supervisor?

> **Answer:** Summarise the Caparo test, highlight the diverging authorities on proximity, briefly compare to your client's situation, and synthesise the outcome to conclude whether proximity likely exists. Present this as a short, structured report with heading, analysis, and final recommendation.

To strengthen the report: weigh authorities by court level, indicate subsequent treatment, and explain policy considerations that courts emphasise in proximity (e.g., avoiding indeterminate liability). If the facts align more closely with cases denying proximity, state the litigation risk and suggest alternative causes of action (e.g., contract, misrepresentation) if relevant.

### **Worked Example 1.4**

You are asked whether relief from forfeiture is likely after a commercial lease forfeiture for non-payment of rent. You find authorities granting relief where arrears are paid promptly and authorities refusing relief where there is continuing breach or delay.

> **Answer:** State the general principle: courts commonly grant relief for non-payment where arrears and costs are promptly satisfied, but discretionary factors (delay, continuing breaches, conduct) can defeat relief. Apply to the client’s timeline (speed of application, arrears cleared, any other breaches), and conclude with the likely outcome and steps (payment proposal; undertaking; evidence of promptness).

### **Worked Example 1.5**

A statutory question arises: does a specific regulatory prohibition apply to your client’s activity? The statute has been amended several times and secondary legislation provides exceptions.

> **Answer:** Confirm the current consolidated text of the Act and relevant statutory instrument(s), identify the operative sections, specify commencement dates and transitional provisions, and apply any exceptions to the client’s activity. Conclude with whether the prohibition applies and, if so, what compliance steps or exemptions might be available.

### **Worked Example 1.6**

You must produce a one-page note on possible defences to a claim for misrepresentation where the contract contains an entire agreement clause and a non-reliance statement.

> **Answer:** Issue: whether the clause excludes liability and the effect of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Law: entire agreement clauses do not automatically bar misrepresentation; non-reliance clauses may be subject to reasonableness under CRA 2015/UCTA (depending on parties). Analysis: compare clause wording to cases upholding/striking similar clauses; assess parties’ bargaining power and drafting. Conclusion: liability likely remains unless the clause is reasonable and expressly addresses misrepresentation; advise on prospects and settlement approach.

## Structuring Reports: Key Techniques

- Use clear section headings: Facts, Law, Analysis, Conclusion.
- Start with a one-sentence summary of the issue.
- List key facts relevant to the legal issue; exclude details that do not affect the advice.
- Briefly summarise each relevant case or statutory provision.
- Where sources conflict, present the reasoning of each before combining findings.
- Finish with a clear, actionable conclusion or advice.
- Cite using neutral citations and preferred report series; include section numbers for statutes.
- Record currency: state the date each source was checked and whether it is in force or has been subsequently considered.
- Use short paragraphs and active voice; avoid jargon, padding, and overly long sentences.
- Signpost uncertainties and propose practical next steps to fill factual gaps.

### **Exam Warning**

> Remember: SQE2 credit is given only for precise, concise written analysis. Writing everything you found, or failing to structure your report, may lose marks—always edit down to relevance.

In the context of authority selection, avoid over-citing. Prefer authoritative reports (e.g., the Law Reports) where available, and include only authorities likely to be referred to in argument. If an unreported case is essential, justify why it adds a binding principle not found elsewhere.

### **Revision Tip**

> When practising written reports, set a strict word or time limit. Summarise only the facts and law that really determine your advice—less is almost always more.

To test summary discipline, practise producing a four-line “issue–rule–application–conclusion” overview before expanding. Track sources and update status in a margin note (citation, court, date checked) to avoid last-minute uncertainty about currency.

## Detailed Guidance and Practical Techniques

- Distinguishing summary vs synthesis:
  - a summary condenses material to the essentials (issue, rule, application, conclusion)
  - a synthesis combines multiple strands into a single, reasoned position, resolving conflicts where possible and explaining residual uncertainty
- Authority weight and selection:
  - identify hierarchy (Supreme Court/House of Lords > Court of Appeal > High Court/outer courts; tribunals are subject-specific)
  - prefer authoritative series where available; use neutral citations
  - note subsequent judicial consideration (applied/approved/distinguished/overruled)
- Case report structure:
  - do not rely solely on headnotes—read the judgment to extract the true ratio
  - capture facts material to the principle, not peripheral narrative
- Legislation:
  - confirm the current text against a consolidated source; check commencement and amendments
  - identify relevant statutory instruments and whether they are in force
- Managing large datasets:
  - build a simple chronology; mark key legal events and dates
  - group documents by relevance to the issue (contract formation; breach; notice; termination)
- Writing style:
  - prefer active voice and specific language; avoid redundancy and archaic terms
  - keep sentences short and purposeful; vary pace with signposting
- Risk and next steps:
  - flag unresolved factual issues and propose targeted evidence gathering (statements, expert reports)
  - propose procedural steps (e.g., pre-action protocol letters, applications) with timeframes

## **Key Point Checklist**

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- Synthesis means combining legal sources and facts to form a unified conclusion.
- A good summary is concise and excludes irrelevant facts or law.
- Written findings must always be clearly structured using appropriate headings or signposting.
- Conclusions must be justified by the analysis and synthesis of material, not simply stated.
- Only include information that addresses the specific legal issue or advice required for the SQE2 assessment.
- Authority selection matters: use neutral citations and authoritative report series; avoid unnecessary duplication.
- Always confirm currency of law and record your sources, dates checked, and any subsequent judicial treatment.
- Present outcomes with reasons, caveats, and practical next steps; separate what is certain from what is arguable.

## **Key Terms and Concepts**

- Synthesis
- Relevant Authority
- Summary
- Conclusion
- Legal Report

Analysis and reporting - Synthesising and summarising findings