How to verify AI-generated legal citations

An AI-generated legal citation can look complete and still be wrong. Verification has two jobs: establish that the authority exists, then establish that it supports the proposed claim. A matching case name or a working link proves neither on its own.

Build a citation register before relying on the draft

Claim made in the draft:
Citation exactly as supplied:
Court / jurisdiction / date:
Authoritative record or report located:
Relevant paragraph or page:
What the passage actually supports:
Status / subsequent treatment checked through:
Unresolved issue:
Reviewer / checked date / disposition:

Check the original material

1. Break the citation into identifiers: case name, court, year, neutral citation or report reference. Keep the supplied version so corrections remain visible.
2. Locate the decision in the relevant court's official source or an appropriate authorized legal research service. Search independently rather than relying only on the model's link.
3. Match the identifiers and read the passage in context. Check whether the wording is a holding, a party's submission, a quotation from another case or a dissent.
4. Check subsequent treatment and current relevance through a suitable research process for that jurisdiction. Finding the original decision does not establish that it remains applicable.
5. Record a disposition. If the authority cannot be located or does not support the proposition, remove the reliance and escalate the research gap.

Recognize a false pass

Suppose a draft says an authority “requires written approval in all cases,” but the cited paragraph only records a party arguing for that requirement. The citation exists and the quoted words may be accurate; the proposition still fails. The corrected record should say that the passage describes an argument, not treat it as a general rule.

Do not replace an unverified citation by asking a model for a more convincing one. Return to the legal question and conduct the research. The SRA's guidance for regulated solicitors and firms in England and Wales addresses risks from fabricated or unreliable AI material; practitioners elsewhere should check their own professional and court requirements.

When the task is finished

The reviewer can trace each relied-upon proposition to an appropriate source and explain its relevance. Unknowns remain visible. A case-verification log does not itself establish that a legal submission is correct or complete. No affiliate product is needed for this checklist; access to the appropriate authoritative materials and qualified review are what matter. See AI for lawyers for choosing a broader pilot.