Skip to main content

AI

Before you file: a citation verification checklist for AI-assisted work (with the sanctions data)

To verify AI-assisted legal work, confirm that every cited case, statute and quotation exists, says what you claim, and is still good law, by reading it in a trusted source, not in the AI's output. Do this for every authority before filing, record who checked it, and check your court's AI rules. The 12-step checklist below does exactly that.

By Raghav Handa · Updated 27 October 2026 · 6 min read

The 12-step pre-filing checklist

  1. 1

    1. List every authority

    Extract every case, statute, regulation, rule and secondary source cited in the draft into a table, one row each.

  2. 2

    2. Confirm existence

    Find each in an official or trusted database by name and citation. If you cannot find it, treat it as nonexistent until proven otherwise.

  3. 3

    3. Check the citation details

    Court, year, volume, page and parties must match the real record, not just look plausible.

  4. 4

    4. Read the passage

    Open the decision or text and read the part relied on, not a summary.

  5. 5

    5. Check the proposition

    Does the authority actually say what the draft says it says? Note the page or paragraph.

  6. 6

    6. Verify quotations

    Compare each quotation word for word with the source.

  7. 7

    7. Check the status

    Use a citator or equivalent to confirm the authority has not been reversed, overruled or superseded.

  8. 8

    8. Check jurisdiction and weight

    Is it binding or persuasive in the court where you are filing?

  9. 9

    9. Check statutes and rules are current

    Confirm the version in force at the relevant date.

  10. 10

    10. Check the court's AI rules

    Look for standing orders, local rules or certification requirements about AI use in your court, and follow them.

  11. 11

    11. Second-person review

    Someone other than the drafter spot-checks or fully checks the table.

  12. 12

    12. Sign off and record

    Record the checker, the date, the sources used and any authorities removed, on the matter before filing.

How many AI-citation cases are there? The data, with dates

Several trackers and articles count cases in which AI-generated false content appeared in court filings. A widely cited tracker is the database maintained by Damien Charlotin. The figures below are as reported in the articles linked in the sources; we have not independently counted them, and the database changes continually, so check the current count at its source before quoting anything.

FigureAs reported byDate or periodScope note
37 casesMSBA article citing the Charlotin database2024Calendar-year tally
524 casesMSBA article citing the Charlotin database2025Calendar-year tally
668 casesMSBA article citing the Charlotin database2026 to 27 JulyYear-to-date at that snapshot
1,397 US casesABA GPSolo, May/June 2026As of 6 May 2026US only, cumulative, different snapshot

Why do the numbers differ? Each one counts a different slice (a calendar year, a year to date, or a cumulative US total) at a different snapshot date. The database is crowd-sourced, so completeness varies. Do not add the rows together or compare across rows as if they were the same measure. The consistent message is the direction: the count has risen year over year.

What kinds of errors should you look for?

Error typeWhat it looks likeHow to catch it
Nonexistent caseA plausible name and citation that no database returnsSearch by citation and by party names in a trusted database
Real case, wrong detailsRight name, wrong court, year or reporterCompare against the official record
Real case, wrong propositionThe case exists but does not say thatRead the passage
Invented quotationQuote marks around words not in the opinionWord-for-word comparison
Outdated authorityCase later overruled; statute amendedCitator and current-version check
Wrong jurisdictionPersuasive authority presented as bindingCheck the court hierarchy

Notice that only the first error is caught by 'does it exist?'. The others are why steps 4 to 7 matter.

What do courts and bars say about AI use?

ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) addresses lawyers' use of generative AI and describes existing duties applying to it, including competence, confidentiality, communication and supervision. Some state bars and individual courts have issued their own guidance or orders, and some courts require certification or disclosure. The picture changes quickly and varies by court, so we do not list rules here. Read the primary text of the opinion and your own court's current orders and local rules.

How do you record verification on the matter?

Keep the checklist table as a record in the matter file. A minimal row set is: authority, source opened, proposition checked, status checked, checker, date. Add a footer with a sign-off line: AI tool used (if any), prompt purpose, verified by, date, court AI rule checked (yes or no).

That one record answers the questions a partner, insurer, court or regulator may ask: what was used, who checked it and how. It also makes the next filing quicker, because authorities you have already verified can be reused with their status re-checked.

Where MatterOS fits

We make MatterOS, so weigh this accordingly. The Research library holds notes linked to matters, and the work review and sign-off feature records that a second person has reviewed work. You can paste the checklist table into a matter page. MatterOS does not verify citations, does not connect to legal databases or citators, and cannot detect AI-generated errors; the checking is a human task.

Frequently asked questions

How do I check if a case cited by AI is real?
Search for it by name and citation in an official reporter, your legal research database or the court's website. If you cannot find it, treat it as nonexistent. Then read the passage to confirm it supports the proposition, and run a citator check on its status.
Can I use ChatGPT or another AI for legal research?
Lawyers do use AI for first drafts and issue-spotting, but every authority must be verified in a trusted source before reliance or filing. Professional-conduct duties of competence, confidentiality and supervision still apply. Check your regulator's guidance and your court's rules on AI use.
How many lawyers have been sanctioned for AI fake citations?
No single reliable figure exists. Trackers count cases, not lawyers, and numbers vary by date and scope; one article reported 668 cases for 2026 through 27 July, and an ABA article cited 1,397 US cases as of 6 May 2026. Check the current database and cite the snapshot date.
Do courts require disclosure of AI use in filings?
Some courts and judges have issued orders or local rules requiring disclosure or certification of AI use, and many have not. Requirements change and vary by court. Check the standing orders and local rules of every court where you file.
Who should sign off on AI-assisted work?
Someone other than the drafter should check the authority table, and the responsible lawyer remains accountable for the filing. Record the checker, date, sources used and any removed authorities on the matter before filing, so you can show your process if asked.

Sources

About the author

Raghav Handa

Raghav Handa trained as a lawyer, then spent years building legal technology, from enterprise legal products to custom systems for law firms.

Stop being the system

MatterOS connects matters, actions, time, team, evidence and research in one Notion workspace you own. $39, one payment, lifetime updates.

Get MatterOS · $39