Quick check
Guess first, no penalty. An AI tool cites a case and says it held that late notice cancels a contract. You search and the case is real. Are you done?
The holding is what a court actually decided. AI tools can cite a real case for a holding it never made, put a quote in its mouth that isn't in the opinion, or cite a case that a higher court later overruled (said was wrong). These errors are harder to catch than invented cases, because the first search succeeds.
So check four things for every authority: it exists, the pin cite (the exact page) says what the draft claims, any quote matches word for word, and it's still good law. A citator (a research tool that shows how later cases treated a case), such as the ones in Westlaw and Lexis, answers the last one.
A verification log
Record what you checked, so the lawyer can see it:
Case: [name and citation]
Exists: yes, opened on [official or trusted source].
Pin cite p. 412: says notice must be "reasonable". Does NOT say
late notice cancels the contract.
Quote in the draft: not found in the opinion.
Still good law: citator shows no negative treatment.
Flag for the lawyer: yes, the point it's cited for isn't supported.Fill the gaps
Fill the gaps in the same log.
Log
Pin cite p. 412: . Quote in the draft: . Still good law: .
Try it
Your steps, about 2 minutes
- 1.Add line 2 to your check sheet: "Every authority: it exists, the pin cite says it, quotes match, still good law." Then check one citation from a public opinion with those four steps.2 min