v1.5 — verification

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 verification engine reads every authority in your brief and confirms it exists, where you say it does, in the published source.

the problem

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.

~30%
of GPT-generated cites are fabricated

Stanford HAI · 2024 — legal-domain study

110+
published US opinions citing fake AI cases

Tracked since 2023 · publicly reported

briefs with one transposed digit

Career-defining for the careful

0
cites Veraciting silently rewrites

We flag. You decide.

what gets checked

five things, per cite.

For every authority we detect, the verification engine runs five resolutions against the local index. A cite passes when all five resolve cleanly. Any failure surfaces in the pane with the specific reason.

01 · case name ↔ reporter

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."

02 · statute exists

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.

03 · regulation is current

the reg hasn't been rescinded or moved.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 Rescinded or renumbered sections are flagged with the new location, when we know it.

04 · agency precedent

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 We verify against the agency's published series — unpublished decisions aren't subject to verification.

05 · pin-cite range

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.

honest limits

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.

what's indexed

a local atlas of published authority.

The verification index lives on your machine. It's roughly 12 MB compressed and updates on the cadence you set in Settings — quarterly by default. Below is what ships at v1.5.

Federal

U.S. (S. Ct.) F.4th / F.3d F. Supp. 3d / 2d U.S. Code (USC) CFR Federal Register Fed. R. Civ. P. / App. P. / Crim. P.

State (at v1.5)

New York California Texas Florida New Jersey Pennsylvania Illinois Massachusetts Washington + 41 more · rolling

covers reporters · codes · administrative regs per state

Agency precedent

EOIR / BIA (I&N Dec.) NLRB SSA (SSRs) IRS Rev. Rul. / Rev. Proc. FERC FCC · coming FTC · coming
Don't see your jurisdiction? Tell us at hello@veraciting.com. We're rolling state coverage on demand — practitioners who write in often get bumped to the front of the line.
when something fails

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.

page mismatch

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.

subsection missing

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.

no record

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.

verification roadmap

what's next, and what isn't.

on the path
  • 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
deliberately off-path
  • 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
The principle. Verification is a tool, not a substitute for cite-checking. A green check from Veraciting means "this exists where you said it does" — not "this case supports your argument." That second job is still yours.

file a brief where every cite was checked.

Veraciting v1.5 ships with a 14-day trial — full verification, no card.

Install Veraciting How privacy works →