I’m often asked whether Practical Law or Westlaw is the better resource for understanding legal trends. The answer? It depends on what you’re trying to achieve. Westlaw excels at deep dives into case law and statutes, offering a granular view of how legal principles are applied. Practical Law, on the other hand, provides high-level overviews and practical guidance, making it ideal for spotting macro-level shifts in legal norms.
For instance, if you’re researching how environmental regulations are evolving, Westlaw will give you every relevant case, statute, and secondary source. But Practical Law might summarize those developments into a trend report, highlighting that courts are increasingly favoring “precautionary principle” arguments in climate litigation. This kind of synthesis is invaluable for forecasting how legal standards might shift in the next five years.
That said, neither tool is a crystal ball. Practical Laws can sometimes oversimplify complex issues, while Westlaw’s sheer volume of data can be overwhelming. The key is to use them in tandem. Start with Practical Law to identify broad trends, then dive into Westlaw to test those trends against the data. Are courts really adopting a more expansive view of corporate liability? Westlaw’s citation networks can help you verify—or debunk—that hypothesis.
Ultimately, the best legal forecasters are those who know how to leverage both platforms. Practical Law gives you the forest; Westlaw gives you the trees. And if you’re using TWEN Westlaw for academic research, learning to navigate both will make your work richer—and your predictions sharper.