AI writes confident, polished legal arguments — and sometimes cites cases that do not exist. Authority Verifier checks every citation against real court records and refuses to release your argument until each one is verified real, on-point, and good law.
Built for self-represented (pro per) litigants and the firms that can’t afford a mistake.
When a made-up case slips into a filing, the damage isn’t hypothetical — it’s on the record, in front of the one person you most need to trust you.
Credibility is the only currency you have in a courtroom. A single phantom citation tells the bench that nothing in your brief can be taken at face value — and that doubt bleeds onto your real, winning arguments.
Courts have already sanctioned filers for submitting AI-invented cases. In Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023) the court sanctioned counsel for a brief built on fabricated citations. [VERIFY before publishing.] For a pro per litigant, a tainted filing can mean your motion is denied on its face.
You usually can’t un-ring the bell. The opposing counsel will highlight the fake cite, the order will note it, and it follows the matter. The cost of catching it before filing is a minute; the cost of catching it after is the case.
This is the part most “AI legal tools” hope you never ask about.
When you ask a language model “is this citation real?”, it answers using the same machinery that invented the citation in the first place. It has no library card. It isn’t looking anything up — it’s predicting the most plausible-sounding next words. A fabricated case reads exactly as fluent and confident as a real one, because fluency is all the model is optimizing for.
Worse: ask it to double-check and it will often defend the fake — inventing a plausible holding, a pin cite, a year. Self-consistency doesn’t mean correctness; it means the model is confidently wrong in a loop. Letting a model grade its own homework is not a safeguard. It’s the same risk, wearing a checkmark.
Authority Verifier doesn’t ask the AI to trust itself. Every citation is sent to CourtListener — the real, public database of U.S. court opinions. Either the case exists in the record, or it doesn’t. That’s a fact the model cannot talk its way around.
Then a separate audit step confirms the real case actually stands for the point you cited it for — not just that it exists. And nothing is released to you until every citation clears. If it can’t be verified, the draft is held back, not handed over.
Other tools generate. We gate. The drafting is the easy part — refusing to ship what can’t be proven is the product.
Tell it the point you need to make and the authority you want to lean on. It drafts the section in proper citation form.
Each citation is resolved against CourtListener and audited for whether the case truly supports your point.
Any fake, off-point, or disallowed authority is flagged and rewritten. You only ever receive a verified section.
You’re going up against trained counsel without a research budget. This levels the field — proper citation form, real authority, and a guarantee you won’t hand the judge a reason to doubt you. Pay per matter or monthly.
Start your filingOne unverified cite from one associate is a malpractice exposure and a reputation hit. Put a hard verification gate between your drafts and the court. Seat-based licensing, shared usage pools, and an audit trail of what was checked.
See enterprise pricingPlaceholder tiers — set real prices in Stripe before launch.