The scope of the problem is substantial. Over 700 court cases now involve AI-generated hallucinations, according to recent legal-tech analysis. Recommended workflows include source retrieval, manual review of every cited case, final citation scanning, and ongoing validity checks through services like Shepard's or KeyCite. The citation-verification market reflects a broader shift toward accountability across AI-powered search and content tools, with new products also monitoring when AI answer engines cite or omit brands and sources.
Attorneys face competing pressures: use AI for efficiency while avoiding sanctions and filing errors from fabricated citations. The crowded marketplace of citation checkers creates a false sense of security. The critical distinction is not automation itself but whether a tool is grounded in reliable legal sources and still requires human verification before submission. Any citation-checking workflow that bypasses manual case review remains a liability.