Generative AI can write a section of a brief in seconds. It can also cite a case that does not exist, attach a real case name to the wrong reporter, or quote language that the court never wrote. Courts have sanctioned lawyers for each of these errors.
In Florida, the stakes went up this year. On May 28, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2). Since June 15, 2026, a person who signs a filing in a Florida court represents that the legal authorities in it “exist and are accurately cited.” The amendment also lets courts impose sanctions for filings that do not meet that standard. You cannot hand that representation to software.
The good news: a reliable check takes about five minutes for a typical motion. Here is the routine we teach in our verification course.
Watch the walkthrough
This 3-minute video runs the full routine on a short, fictitious argument section and catches three problems in four citations.
Read the video transcript
Generative AI can draft part of a brief in seconds. It can also cite cases that do not exist. In this walkthrough, we run a five-step check on a short, fictitious argument section, and we catch three problems before they could reach a court.
Start by asking the AI tool for an inventory of every authority in the draft. This prompt asks for five columns: the case name, the full citation, the pin cite, the proposition, and any quotation. The most important instruction is the last one. It tells the tool not to add, correct, or remove anything. You want an exact copy that you can check, not a tool that quietly rewrites its own mistakes.
Here is the result from Microsoft Copilot. There are four authorities, each on its own row, copied exactly as the draft wrote them. That includes any errors, which is what we asked for. Now each row is a separate item to verify. Watch the last two rows in particular.
Next, look up every citation. Here we use CourtListener, a free case law database from Free Law Project. The citation 477 U.S. 317 brings up Celotex Corporation versus Catrett, decided in 1986. The case name, the court, and the year all match the draft.
The citation 477 U.S. 242 brings up Anderson versus Liberty Lobby, which matches the second row. But the third row cites Scott versus Harris at the same citation. Scott versus Harris is a real case, but it is not at this citation. A real citation attached to the wrong case name is still an error, and it must be fixed before you file.
The fourth citation returns no result at all. We invented this case for the demonstration, and it looks the way fabricated authority usually looks: a believable name, a believable court, and nothing behind it. A free database can miss some real decisions, so check your research platform before you remove a citation. In this case, the authority does not exist.
Now read the passage at the pin cite. The draft put language from Celotex in quotation marks. The opinion actually says that Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party’s case. The draft’s version is shorter and reworded, so it is not a quotation. Quote the court exactly, or paraphrase without quotation marks.
The last step is to check treatment. Run every authority you keep through KeyCite, Shepard’s, or your research platform’s citator. A case can exist, match its citation, and say exactly what you quote, and still be overruled or limited. A free citation lookup does not tell you that.
Finally, record what you checked, the result, who checked it, and when. Our short draft had three problems in four citations. In Florida, the person who signs a filing now represents that its authorities exist and are accurately cited. A simple log shows how you met that duty.
To learn the complete verification workflow, take LGTAI501, AI-Assisted Legal Research and Drafting. You can find it at legalgpts.com.
Why AI tools get citations wrong
A large language model predicts the most likely next words. A citation with a volume, a reporter, a page, and a court looks like a pattern, so a model can produce one that fits the pattern but matches no real case. Tools that search a legal database first reduce this risk, but they do not remove it. They can still misstate a holding or attach a quotation to the wrong case.
So treat every AI-supplied authority as a lead to confirm, never as a finished citation.
The 5-minute routine
- Get a citation table from the draft. Ask the AI tool to list every authority it used in a table. A table makes it easy to see what you must check.
- Run every citation through a lookup. Paste the citations into a citation lookup, such as the free CourtListener citation lookup or your firm’s research platform. The lookup tells you whether each citation points to a real case.
- Match the details. For each result, compare the case name, court, year, and reporter citation with the draft. A real citation with the wrong case name is still an error.
- Read the cited passage. Open the opinion and find the pin cite. Confirm that the case says what the draft says it says. Compare every quotation word for word.
- Check that it is still good law. Run KeyCite, Shepard’s, or your platform’s citator on every authority you keep.
Then record what you checked, who checked it, and when. A short log protects you if anyone later asks how you verified the filing.
Step 1 prompt (copy and adapt)
List every legal authority cited in the draft above in a table with these columns:
1. Case name exactly as written in the draft
2. Full citation exactly as written
3. Pin cite, if any
4. The proposition the draft cites it for (one sentence)
5. Any direct quotation attributed to it
Do not add, correct, or remove any authority. If a column is empty, write NONE.Why this prompt works: it tells the tool to copy, not to fix. If you ask a model to “check” its own citations, it can “correct” a fake citation into a different fake citation. You want an exact inventory that a person and a database can verify.
What a free lookup can and cannot do
A database lookup is a fast first filter. It is not the whole check.
| A citation lookup can | A citation lookup cannot |
|---|---|
| Find citations that point to no case | Tell you whether the case supports your proposition |
| Flag a case name that does not match the citation | Confirm that a quotation is accurate |
| Correct reporter formatting (for example, “US” to “U.S.”) | Tell you whether the case is still good law |
| Check many citations at once | Reliably find every trial-court order, unpublished opinion, or statute |
If the lookup cannot find a citation, do not delete it yet. Some real decisions are not in free databases. Find the case in your research platform or on the court’s own website before you decide.
Make it a habit
Run the routine on every AI-assisted draft, not only the ones that look suspicious. Fabricated citations look exactly like real ones. If a paralegal or associate runs the check, the lawyer who signs still owns the result, so review the log before you file.
Learn the full workflow
This routine is one part of a complete verification workflow. LGTAI501: AI-Assisted Legal Research and Drafting: Verification Workflows covers research prompts, verification at each drafting stage, supervision of staff who use AI, and how to document your review. For the professional responsibility side, see LGTAI301: Ethics of AI in Legal Practice.
Sources
- In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515, No. SC2026-0673 (Fla. May 28, 2026); see The Florida Bar News coverage of the amendment
- CourtListener Citation Lookup and Verification API documentation, Free Law Project
- The Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (January 19, 2024)
- ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (July 29, 2024)
Current as of November 2026. This article is general education, not legal advice. Check the current text of any rule before you rely on it.