A legal reference suggested by AI must be found and checked
A practical way to verify citations before they enter a note or court submission.
A plausible reference can still be wrong
A case number, court name and date can look convincing. Yet a reference may be invented or point to a judgment that does not support the stated proposition. The CCBE's October 2025 guide highlights this risk of fictitious sources.
The practical consequence for a firm is straightforward: no suggested citation should enter a final document until the source has been found and read.
Separate discovery from validation
A suggestion can be a research lead. Find the judgment in a reliable source and verify its identity. Read both the cited passage and its context. An isolated sentence may concern a different issue.
Record the court, date, stable reference and relevant passage in the working document. This allows a reviewer to trace the argument without repeating the entire search.
Check relevance to the matter
A genuine judgment can still be used incorrectly. The facts, procedure or applicable legislation may differ. Research therefore needs to establish both that the source exists and that it supports the argument in this context.
Asking AI to confirm its own answer is not an independent check. A second version may repeat the same error with greater confidence.
Plan the review
Allow time for citation checking within the matter. Identify who will review the references and retain the useful sources. A tool can accelerate preparation; the quality of the document still depends on that final assessment.
Sources and references
General information. Application to a matter depends on its facts and the rules in force.
