Citation Verification Audit
Before any brief, motion or memo leaves the office, especially if any part was drafted with AI assistance or by someone whose research you have not reviewed.
Courts have sanctioned lawyers for filing briefs with citations that did not exist, quotations that were never in the opinion and pinpoints that supported nothing. Many of those errors started with an AI tool, but the underlying failure is older: nobody checked every authority against the source before the brief was signed. A systematic cite-check is the fix, and the hard part is making sure every single authority is on the list.
This prompt reads your draft and builds the worksheet. Every case, statute, rule and secondary source goes into a table in order of appearance, with where it appears, the sentence it supports, any language quoted from it, the pinpoint and the signal. Four verification columns (exists, quote accurate, still good law, pinpoint supports proposition) are left blank for the person doing the check. It flags malformed citations, quotes without pinpoints, inconsistent short forms and propositions that may be stated too broadly.
Claude does not verify anything in this prompt, and it is told not to. It has no live citator access, and recognizing a citation is not evidence that the citation is right. The worksheet only ensures nothing is skipped. A person must confirm each authority exists, that quotations match the original, that the authority is still good law and that the pinpoint supports the point. The output is a draft for attorney review, and every citation must be verified before filing.
The Prompt
Prepare a cite-check worksheet for the [BRIEF / MEMO / MOTION] below, which will be filed in or relates to [COURT OR JURISDICTION]. A person will verify every authority in a citator and against the original source. Your job is to build the checklist, not to verify. <document name="draft"> [PASTE THE FULL DRAFT, INCLUDING FOOTNOTES] </document> Required citation style: [BLUEBOOK / LOCAL RULES / STATE STYLE MANUAL / NONE SPECIFIED] List every authority cited in the draft (cases, statutes, regulations, rules, secondary sources, record cites if any) in the order they appear. Output a table: # | Citation as written | Location in draft (page, section or footnote) | Proposition it is cited for (quote the sentence it supports) | Quoted language attributed to it (exact, or "none") | Pinpoint given (or "none") | Signal used | Verify: exists | Verify: quote accurate | Verify: still good law | Verify: pinpoint supports proposition | Notes Leave all four Verify columns blank for the human checker. In Notes, flag: - Citations that look incomplete or malformed for the stated style (missing reporter, year, court, pinpoint). - Quotations with no pinpoint. - The same authority cited inconsistently (different years, volumes or names). - Short forms (id., supra) whose antecedent is unclear. - Propositions that seem broader than a typical holding would support, worded as a question for the checker. Do not state whether any authority exists, is accurate or is good law, and do not supply missing citation details from memory. If you recognize a citation, do not treat that as verification. After the table, give counts by authority type and a list of every flagged item. This worksheet is a draft for attorney review; every citation must be verified before filing.
Example Output
A table of every authority with the proposition it supports, quoted language, pinpoint and four blank verification columns for a human cite-checker, followed by flagged formatting and consistency issues.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
CITE-CHECK WORKSHEET (DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW)
Draft: Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment | Style: Bluebook
# | Citation as written | Location | Proposition (quoted) | Quoted language | Pinpoint | Signal | Exists | Quote | Good law | Pinpoint | Notes
1 | Harrow v. Delacourt Mills, Inc., [VOLUME] F.4th [PAGE] ([CIRCUIT] 2022) | p. 6 | "Summary judgment is improper where intent is genuinely disputed." | "a classic jury question" | none | none | | | | | Quote has no pinpoint
2 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) | p. 5 | "The movant must show there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact." | none | n/a | none | | | | |
3 | Id. | p. 6 | "Courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant." | none | none | none | | | | | Antecedent unclear: preceding cite is Harrow, but sentence reads like it relies on Rule 56
4 | Marsh v. Ellington Grain Co., [CITATION] (2019) | p. 8, n.3 | "An employer's shifting explanations alone defeat summary judgment." | none | 412 | See | | | | | Proposition may be broader than a typical holding: does the case say shifting explanations "alone" are enough?
5 | Marsh v. Ellington Grain Co., [CITATION] (2018) | p. 11 | "Pretext may be shown by inconsistency." | none | 415 | Cf. | | | | | Year differs from row 4 (2019 vs 2018)
COUNTS
Cases: 3 citations (2 unique cases, 1 inconsistent) | Rules: 1 | Short forms: 1
FLAGGED ITEMS
1. Row 1: quotation without pinpoint.
2. Row 3: Id. antecedent unclear.
3. Row 4: proposition wording ("alone") should be confirmed against the opinion.
4. Rows 4-5: inconsistent year for Marsh.
Every citation above must be verified in a citator and against the original source before filing.Tips
- •Use the worksheet with a citator and the original sources. The value is that nothing gets skipped, not that Claude checked anything.
- •Assign the checker by name and have them initial each row. Some judges' standing orders require a certification that a person verified the citations.
- •Pay attention to the proposition column. A real case cited for something it does not hold is as serious as a fake one, and it is harder to catch.
- •Run it on every draft, including drafts written without AI. Copied citations from old briefs carry their own errors.
- •Treat the output as a draft for attorney review. Every citation must be verified before filing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Claude tell me whether a case is still good law?
Not reliably, and this prompt does not ask it to. Claude has no live access to citator services, and its training data can be out of date or simply wrong. Use a citator to confirm subsequent history and treatment, and read the original opinion to confirm the quote and the proposition. The worksheet makes sure nothing gets skipped; the verification itself is human work.
Why not just have Claude fix the malformed citations?
Because supplying missing volumes, pages or years from memory is exactly how fabricated or wrong citations get into briefs. The prompt flags a citation as incomplete and leaves the correction to the person who pulls the original source. That way every detail in the final citation comes from the source itself, not from a model's best guess.
Is this only for AI-drafted briefs?
No. Citations copied from old briefs, form files or a colleague's research carry their own errors, such as overruled cases, misquoted language or pinpoints that drifted between editions. Running the worksheet on every filing builds a consistent habit, and some judges' standing orders require attorneys to certify that a person verified the citations. Whatever the drafting method, the signing attorney is responsible for every citation.
How should we record that the check was done?
Have the checker fill in the four verify columns and initial or date each row, then keep the completed worksheet in the file with the filed version of the brief. If your court requires an AI-use certification, the completed worksheet is the support for the statement that each citation was verified by a person against the original source.
Related Prompts
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.