every citation, accounted for.
A hallucinated cite has already cost lawyers their cases and, in a small number of public matters, their licenses. Veraciting's planned verification engine will read every authority in your brief and confirm it exists, where you say it does, in the published source. This is a future v1.5 capability — it isn't available yet.
good drafts have bad cites.
Even careful lawyers transpose a digit. Even careful associates misread a Westlaw header. Even careful AI tools generate citations that look right and aren't — because looking right is what they're trained to do.
The traditional fix is a final read-through, cite-checking with a tab open to Westlaw or Lexis. That works — until the brief is 70 pages and the deadline is tomorrow. Verification catches the cases your eye won't, in seconds, before the brief goes anywhere.
Stanford · "Large Legal Fictions" 2024
AI Hallucination Cases Database (D. Charlotin) · publicly tracked
Career-defining for the careful
We flag. You decide.
five things, per cite.
The plan: for every authority Veraciting detects, the verification engine will run five resolutions against the local index. A cite passes when all five resolve cleanly; any failure surfaces in the pane with the specific reason. (Planned v1.5 behavior — see the status note above.)
the case appears at the volume and page you cited.
We resolve case names against the reporter index (S. Ct., F.3d, F. Supp. 3d, regional reporters, I&N Dec., and so on). If the parties or the page don't match, you'll see "page mismatch" or "no record at that cite."
the section, subsection, and clause are real.
USC and state codes are indexed at the subsection level. A cite to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.42(g) is checked against the actual § 1003.42 — if it stops at (f), you'll know.
the reg hasn't been rescinded or moved.
CFR cites are checked against the most recent indexed snapshot. Rescinded or renumbered sections are flagged with the new location, when we know it.
the agency actually published this opinion.
BIA precedent (I&N Dec.), NLRB, SSA SSRs, and other administrative reporters are checked. We verify against the agency's published series — unpublished decisions aren't subject to verification.
the pin-cite falls inside the opinion.
A pin to Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2114 is checked against the opinion's actual page range. Pin-cites outside the opinion are flagged — usually the wrong volume or a transposed digit.
what we can't verify.
Holdings. Propositions. Whether a case is overruled. Pin-cites to the correct legal point. These require reading the case. Veraciting checks that the cite exists where you said it does — not whether the cite supports what you said.
a local atlas of published authority.
The planned verification index lives on your machine. It's intended to be roughly 12 MB compressed and to update on the cadence you set in Settings — quarterly by default. Below is what's planned for v1.5.
Federal
State (at v1.5)
covers reporters · codes · administrative regs per state
Agency precedent
we flag. you decide.
A flagged cite is never silently rewritten. Veraciting shows you what we tried to verify, what we found instead, and — when we have one — a suggested correction. The decision is yours.
Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 593 U.S. 409
reporter ends at p. 396 · suggest 593 U.S. 388
A common transposition: the opinion exists, the volume is correct, the page is wrong.
8 C.F.R. § 1003.42(g)
§ 1003.42 ends at (f) · review pin
The statute exists; the subsection you cited doesn't. Often a misremembered cite or AI fabrication.
In re Henderson, 41 F.4th 998
not in F.4th vol. 41 · no near match
When a case isn't in any indexed reporter at the cited location and we can't suggest a fix, we say so plainly.
what's next, and what isn't.
- full state coverage (50 states, regs included)
- state-specific Bluebook variants & local rules
- overruled / abrogated case detection
- pin-cite proposition matching (experimental)
- court-rule citations (Fed. R. Evid., state equivalents)
- foreign citation styles (Canada, UK, EU) for cross-border practice
- holding analysis — that's lawyering, not verification
- auto-correction without your confirmation
- cloud-based verification (privacy floor is hard)
- training a model on your briefs to "improve verification"
- silent inclusion of unverified cites in the TOA
verification is on the way.
v1.5 verification is in development and not yet available. v1 marking ships first; verification follows.