How to check AI citations before filing: a step-by-step routine

How to check AI citations before filing: the short routine

This is a method guide, not legal advice. Court rules and sanctions vary, so read the rules of the court you file in.

The routine has six steps. Pull every citation from the draft. Open each one in a source you trust. Read the passage the draft relies on. Check the authority is still good law. Check whether your court or judge has rules about AI. Keep a record. Each step catches a different kind of error, and an AI tool can fail at any of them.

Why every citation needs a human check

In its Mata v. Avianca sanctions opinion of June 22, 2023, the federal court for the Southern District of New York said there is nothing inherently improper about using a reliable AI tool, but that the rules give attorneys a gatekeeping role for the accuracy of their filings. The opinion describes non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations created by an AI tool, and it explains the harms: the opposing party wastes time, the court's time is taken, the client may lose real arguments and the reputations of named judges can be harmed. It also found bad faith where the attorneys kept standing behind the fake opinions after the court questioned them.

The lesson for a filing routine is to correct errors the moment you find them.

Step by step

• Step one, list the cites: copy every case, statute and rule from the draft into a checklist, including those in footnotes and the table of authorities. The Mata opinion notes that three of the fake cases even slipped into the table of authorities of a later filing, an error counsel caught and corrected.
• Step two, confirm existence: open each case from a primary or official source, or a database you subscribe to, and match the court, year, reporter and docket. A cite that cannot be found is a stop sign.
• Step three, confirm support: read the passage. Stanford researchers describe a second kind of failure, a source that exists but does not support the claim. Match every quotation and every stated holding to the opinion's text.
• Step four, confirm status: run each authority through a citator you trust. Westlaw lists KeyCite and LexisNexis lists Shepard's, which its page says checks status and treatment.
• Step five, check local rules: look for your court's or judge's standing order on AI use or disclosure. A 2024 Stanford summary counted more than 25 federal judges with such orders, so read the current orders for your court.
• Step six, keep a record: save the checklist and the sources you opened, so you can show the care you took.

Where automated checkers help and where they stop

Some tools screen a draft for you. CaseRead's Hallucination Shield looks up each citation and reads it against the sentence it supports, for up to 50 citations per run, and its page calls the result an automated screen, not a citator. Clearbrief says it checks citations to the law and the facts without generative AI. Shepard's Verify, from LexisNexis, checks citations in AI responses and drafts and flags unsupported statements.

Use these as a second pair of eyes after your own pass, or as a first filter that tells you where to look. Their reports are the vendors' descriptions, and a clean report does not prove a brief is correct. CaseRead's own terms say the attorney is solely responsible for verifying every citation.

Other duties that come with AI use

• Confidentiality: ABA Formal Opinion 512 applies Model Rule 1.6, so know where a tool sends client information and whether it trains on it.
• Competence: the opinion applies Model Rule 1.1 and asks lawyers to understand the benefits and risks of the technology they use.
• Fees: the opinion applies Model Rule 1.5, so time spent on AI work must be reasonable to bill.
• Choosing a tool: the solo attorney guide compares routes, and what CaseRead is describes one of them.