CiteProof checks legal citations against court data without a language model
CiteProof checks whether legal citations identify real cases and, in its paid service, whether quotations match the opinion text. The tool uses searches of public court data rather than a language model, according to its developer. The Register details the approach: a matching case leaves attorneys to assess the legal argument and the continuing validity of the decision.
Artificial Intelligence··Evening
Citation identity and quotation checks do different jobs
CiteProof, a service for checking legal citations, searches public court data for case references that may have been fabricated or misidentified. This account rests on The Register’s 16 October report. According to the company, its checks use deterministic searches rather than a large language model. Free checks cover a case’s existence and identity; the paid service also compares quoted words with the opinion text and points to the closest passage.[1]
A real citation can still name the wrong case
A citation can point to a genuine volume and page while attaching the wrong case name. Other examples involve an unpublished volume or a changed word inside a quotation. CourtListener, a public case-law database, supplies the case lookup; GovInfo is used to check the existence of US Code references. Results distinguish verified citations, findings requiring attention and references the system cannot check. A successful lookup leaves two legal questions unanswered: whether the decision supports the argument and whether it remains good law.[1]
The developer limits what leaves its servers
CiteProof keeps paid findings for 90 days, whereas a free check leaves no retained brief, the company says. Its processing infrastructure is in California. It says CourtListener receives citation strings extracted from the document; neither the brief nor its quoted passages go to a language model. Attorneys still assess the legal argument. Facts, regulations, state statutes and secondary authorities fall outside the stated checking scope. A small evaluation selected by the developer supplies no general accuracy rate for legal filings.[1]
