How to verify AI legal citations: a case-checking worksheet

To verify AI legal citations, separate three questions: is this the decision named, does it say what the draft attributes to it, and does it help answer the research question? Opening a working link cannot settle all three. This worksheet prevents a located document from being treated as a checked legal conclusion.

The French Conseil d’État’s AI charter calls for independent checks of references. It is institutional guidance for the French administrative judiciary, not a rule governing every English-speaking jurisdiction. The workflow below is our own practical recording tool and does not analyse any real dispute.

Save the claim before changing the citation

Copy the precise sentence that the cited decision is supposed to support. Keep the citation as originally supplied in a separate field. Split a sentence that contains two propositions: a source may support one without supporting the other. Give every row an internal label that remains stable while the draft changes.

Record missing details rather than guessing them. A court, date or paragraph number silently added during editing can later look as though it came from the original reference. Your record should distinguish information supplied by the tool from information established through independent research.

Choose a collection for the actual jurisdiction

For research involving England and Wales and the UK-wide courts listed by the service, The National Archives provides Find Case Law. Its search guidance explains searching by neutral citation and filtering by court and date. Compare the result’s identity with the reference you received; a similar case name is not sufficient.

Check the service’s courts and date coverage. Its published ranges do not guarantee a complete collection. If a search fails, inspect the transcription, vary one filter at a time and consider the issuing court’s own source. A missing result does not by itself establish fabrication. English-language research may concern the United States or another jurisdiction, for which a different collection is needed.

Inspect the passage behind the proposition

Open the actual text and record the location you read. Establish whose words they are. An account of a party’s submission should not quietly become the court’s conclusion. Read enough surrounding material to recognise a qualification or limitation omitted from the draft.

Compare a quotation with the original wording. For a paraphrase, ask whether it makes the proposition broader than the passage allows. If you have only a summary or a headnote, say so in the worksheet and leave the full proposition open until the required text has been checked.

Use three separate review fields

Copy this record: row label | draft proposition | supplied citation | located document | passage read | support found | support not found | unresolved context | consultation date.

Keep separate fields for identity checked, content compared and relevance assessed. A single green “correct” label hides which work has been completed. Relevance requires consideration of the jurisdiction, relevant time, authority and subsequent developments affecting the argument. A document remaining online does not answer those questions.

Make a reasoned editing decision

Use descriptive workflow states such as “identity unresolved”, “document found, passage unread”, “partial support”, “unsupported by the passage read” and “ready for professional assessment”. Add a reason. If access is unavailable, keep the item unresolved rather than classifying it as false to finish the table.

Removing a citation also requires revisiting the proposition. Another decision on a related topic does not automatically justify keeping the same sentence. Check whether the change affects later paragraphs or the conclusion, and preserve the link between each revised claim and its evidence.

Ask AI to organise checked notes

Legal Assistant AI can help organise research notes and outlines. That supporting use should not be described as automatic verification against official databases. Share only public material or material you are authorised to provide, and retain control of review states.

Prompt: “Organise these rows without adding authorities or facts. Keep identity, content and relevance separate. Preserve my uncertainties and supplied locations. Do not mark a citation as verified yourself. List empty fields and questions I must resolve in the original source.”

Before reusing the draft, check that every proposition still has a row, the recorded locations let someone repeat the reading, and outstanding checks remain visible. The value of the worksheet is an accurate account of the work remaining, rather than an appearance of certainty.