Legal AI Verification Lab
A fluent AI answer and a verified one are not the same thing. This page sets out, concretely, what verifying an AI-generated legal citation or proposition actually involves - the same discipline LegalDreams applies internally to AI-assisted output, and the same discipline we think every advocate should apply to any AI tool's output, including ours.
Does the citation exist at all?
Confirm the case, section, or notification is a real, identifiable record - not a plausible-sounding name that doesn't correspond to anything.
Is the court correct?
A citation can name a real case decided by a different court than claimed - check the forum matches what's asserted.
Is the case title correct?
Party names get transposed or conflated with similarly-named matters more often than expected - confirm the exact title.
Is the date correct?
A wrong date can point to a different judgment in the same matter's history (an interim order versus the final judgment, for instance).
Is the citation number itself correct?
Neutral citation, SCC, or AIR reference numbers should resolve to the actual judgment being described, not a nearby or transposed number.
Does the quoted passage actually appear in the judgment?
A quotation can be fabricated wholesale or lightly paraphrased in a way that changes its meaning - check the quoted text against the primary source, not a summary of it.
Does that passage actually support the proposition it's cited for?
A real quotation from a real case can still be cited for a proposition it doesn't actually establish, especially if taken out of context (obiter versus ratio, or a dissenting opinion presented as the holding).
Is the primary source actually available to check?
If the only way to verify a citation is another AI-generated summary, that isn't independent verification - trace back to an official source (the court's own portal, an official gazette, a recognized reporter).
Is the legal position still current?
A correctly-cited judgment can still be overruled, distinguished, or superseded by later legislation - confirm the proposition is still good law, not just that the citation is accurate.
Is a judgment being confused with an explanatory summary?
Courts and legal-tech tools alike sometimes publish plain-language summaries of judgments for accessibility. The Supreme Court of India is explicit that its own Landmark Judgment Summaries are explanatory and do not form part of the Court's actual decision or reasoning - the same discipline applies to any AI-generated summary of a case.
What this page is not
This is not a claim that LegalDreams - or any AI tool - achieves perfect verification, and we do not publish accuracy percentages or benchmark scores, because a number like that is easy to state and hard to substantiate honestly across the full range of real legal questions. What we can commit to is the methodology above, and to being explicit about which of these checks are automated in a given feature versus which remain the advocate's own responsibility. See our AI Policy for how this connects to what LegalDreams actually does today.