It was critical that the U.S. Supreme Court have the best empirical evidence available to help inform its decisions in "Fisher." The "amicus" brief filed by 444 researchers from 172 institutions in 42 states was the result of a collaborative effort among members of the social science, educational, and legal communities. In her role as counsel of record on the brief, the author relied on her training as a lawyer and educational researcher, including having served as counsel of record in a prior "amicus" brief filed by 553 social science researchers in the K-12 voluntary desegregation cases: "Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1" (2007) and "Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education" (2007). In this process, the author and other social scientists found it important to consider how researchers can communicate findings to inform legal developments in future cases. In this paper, the author argues that scholars may do so by increasing their understanding of the applicable legal standards in a case, presenting their findings in language that can be understood by a legal audience, and familiarizing themselves with the outcome of cases or ongoing litigation to help frame new research studies that can directly address future legal action. (Contains 3 notes.)