What does Google Scholar lack which your typical law firm does not in terms of case data?
<p>I hope this isn't a subjective question.  I want to know what Google Scholar lacks compared to paid services that lawyers use so I know what I am missing before I go and try to have an argument with a lawyer.</p>

<p>Google Scholar is not specifically a legal research tool. The search does return many court and legal documents</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Which court opinions do you include?</strong></p>
  
  <p>Currently, Google Scholar allows you to search and read published
  opinions of US state appellate and supreme court cases since 1950, US
  federal district, appellate, tax and bankruptcy courts since 1923 and
  US Supreme Court cases since 1791. In addition, it includes citations
  for cases cited by indexed opinions or journal articles which allows
  you to find influential cases (usually older or international) which
  are not yet online or publicly available. From <a href="https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/help.html#coverage" rel="nofollow">https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/help.html#coverage</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>but by reading those inclusions, you can see that it's not as complete as some of the paid commercial services available.</p>

<p>The most important criticism of Google Scholar for legal research appears to be the lack of a way to <em>fully</em> Shepardize cases; see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard%27s_Citations" rel="nofollow">Shepard's Citations - Wikipedia</a></p>

<p>Shepardizing determines if cases have been overruled (or reaffirmed, questioned, or cited by later cases). Google Scholar will show case citations; but they are not as complete as commercial services. See <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=google+scholar+shepardize" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=google+scholar+shepardize</a> for critical references.</p>

<p>If you're going to argue with a lawyer, completely Shepardizing your relevant cases is rather important.</p>

lawyer