The checklist
Print this, run through it, sign it, and file it with the matter. Each phase is sequential; do not skip ahead.
Download as PDFPRE-PUBLICATION CITATION AUDIT CHECKLIST
─────────────────────────────────────────────────
Matter: __________________________________________
Document: ________________________________________
Drafted by: ______________________________________
Date drafted: ____________________________________
Audit performed by: ______________________________
Date of audit: ___________________________________
PHASE 1 — INVENTORY (do this once per document)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────
[ ] 1.1 List every cited authority in the document.
Include cases, statutes, regulations, treatises, and bar
opinions. Do not skip ones that look obvious or that you
believe were already verified.
[ ] 1.2 For each citation, record:
- Cite-as-given (verbatim from the document)
- Pin-cite or page reference (if any)
- The proposition the citation is offered to support
[ ] 1.3 Identify which citations were AI-assisted in any way:
- Found by AI (e.g., CoCounsel research, Westlaw AI search)
- Drafted by AI (the AI suggested the cite to support a point)
- Reformatted by AI (the AI restated a real cite)
PHASE 2 — VERIFY EACH CITATION
─────────────────────────────────────────────────
For each citation, complete the following. Do NOT skip any.
[ ] 2.1 The case (or statute / regulation) exists.
Search a primary-source database (Westlaw, Lexis, Cornell LII,
CourtListener, Justia). The result must include:
- Party names
- Court
- Reporter / citation
- Year
[ ] 2.2 The citation format is correct.
The volume, reporter, page, court, and year should match the
Bluebook or jurisdiction-specific citation format.
[ ] 2.3 The pin-cite (if any) is real.
Open the case and confirm that the cited page exists and that
the cited language appears at that page.
[ ] 2.4 The case stands for the cited proposition.
Read the relevant portion of the case (headnotes are a starting
point; the actual reasoning controls). The proposition should
actually appear in the case, not be inferred or invented.
[ ] 2.5 The case has not been overruled or abrogated.
Run KeyCite (Westlaw) or Shepard's (Lexis) on every case relied
upon. Negative treatment that the AI did not flag is itself a
red flag.
PHASE 3 — STATUTORY AND REGULATORY VERIFICATION
─────────────────────────────────────────────────
[ ] 3.1 Each statute citation links to the current version on Cornell
LII or eCFR.
[ ] 3.2 Each regulation citation reflects the current CFR text, not a
repealed or amended version.
[ ] 3.3 Effective dates are correct. Where the matter requires applying
the law as it stood at a specific time, the version cited
matches that time.
PHASE 4 — DOCUMENT-LEVEL REVIEW
─────────────────────────────────────────────────
[ ] 4.1 Every quotation is verbatim from the source.
Open the source and confirm word-for-word match.
[ ] 4.2 Every paraphrased proposition is supported by the cited
authority.
[ ] 4.3 No citation in the document is unaccounted for in this audit.
PHASE 5 — RED FLAGS
─────────────────────────────────────────────────
If any of the following are present, escalate to the supervising
attorney before filing:
[ ] 5.1 An AI-assisted citation that I could not independently verify.
[ ] 5.2 A pin-cite to a page that does not exist or does not contain the
cited language.
[ ] 5.3 A case that supports a different proposition than the one cited.
[ ] 5.4 A case that has been overruled or abrogated for the cited point.
[ ] 5.5 A "quotation" that does not appear verbatim in the source.
PHASE 6 — SIGN-OFF
─────────────────────────────────────────────────
[ ] 6.1 I have personally verified every citation in this document
against a primary-source legal-research database.
[ ] 6.2 I have not relied on AI output to confirm any citation.
[ ] 6.3 I am prepared to defend every citation under Rule 11 (FRCP) /
Rule 3.3 (Model Rules of Professional Conduct).
Signature: _______________________________________
Date: ____________________________________________
This completed checklist is filed with the matter as part of the firm's
audit trail. Retention period: per firm records retention policy.
How to use it
Inputs / fill-ins
Any document containing citations that will be filed with a court, sent to opposing counsel, or transmitted to a client: brief, motion, memorandum of law, demand letter, opinion letter.
What you get
Output
A signed, dated checklist filed with the matter. Documents the verification of every citation and creates an audit trail in the event of a sanctions inquiry.
Verification — what the lawyer must do
- The checklist IS the verification. The whole point is that there is no shortcut: every citation must be independently verified against a primary source.
- Use the right tool for verification. CoCounsel, Vincent, Lexis+ AI, or direct Westlaw / Lexis. Do not use general-purpose AI.
- File the completed checklist with the matter. If a sanctions inquiry ever arises, the documented audit is the firm’s strongest defence.
⚠ Risks and failure modes
- Skipping the audit: Mata v. Avianca and Park v. Kim establish that the lawyer who signs the document is responsible for every citation, regardless of how the citation got there. Skipping this audit is the path to sanctions.
- Verifying with AI: The original Mata failure was an attorney trusting AI output to verify AI-generated citations. The verification step must use a primary-source database.
- Treating obvious citations as already-verified: Some sanctioned attorneys had real citations mixed with hallucinated ones. The hallucinated cites were the ones the lawyer did not double-check because they "looked right."
Citations and further reading
- Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023).
- Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024).
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
- ABA Formal Opinion 512.
- IXSOR Resources: Citation Verifier — the Mata Defense Prompt — the AI-assisted version of Phase 1 inventory.