The problem is accountability, not answers
Generative research tools can return fluent memos that cite authorities which do not exist in any reporter, or which exist but do not stand for the proposition they are used to support. Courts treat those errors as the lawyer’s. Telling a tribunal that a model produced the citation is not a defense. The person who signs the brief is accountable for every authority in it.
The five checks
OWL is a verification layer on top of research you already have. It does not replace a lawyer, a paralegal, or a research database. It checks citations so a human reviewer can see the trail before filing.
Existence
Does this case actually exist in the reporter?
Citation format
Is the citation well-formed and does it resolve?
Holding support
Does the case actually stand for what it is being cited for?
Verification path
Can you see and follow the chain from claim to source?
Human review flag
Where does OWL say a person needs to look at this?
How to verify AI-generated legal citations
Paste a cite or a paragraph on /verify. OWL runs the five checks above and shows failures explicitly: citation not found, ambiguous citation, or source unavailable. The method is in Verifying AI-generated citations before filing. Verification is not legal advice; a person still signs the brief.
What a verification audit trail contains
The trail records the pasted string, which checks ran, which public source was used, and whether the result was pass, fail, or needs review. It is not a chatbot screenshot. See What a verification audit trail should contain.
See a verification output
Static preview of the public Carpenter v. United States example. Open the full verify page to run it.
Working example
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 946 (2018)
Supreme Court of the United States · Docket 16-402 · Decided 2018-06-22 · Vote 5–4
Existence. The decision is in the U.S. Reports and is retrievable from public legal sources.
Citation format. Bluebook short form in the example file: Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 946 (2018).
Holding support. The example records this holding: the Government’s acquisition of seven days or more of historical cell-site records is a Fourth Amendment search; police generally must obtain a warrant supported by probable cause.
Verification path. Follow the same public sources used in the example:
Cornell LII CourtListener Oyez Supreme Court PDF
Human review flag. A person still needs to confirm this holding before citing Carpenter for a different proposition, a different duration of records, or a different court.
Who it is for
OWL is for solo and small-firm attorneys, litigation support, and in-house counsel who already use AI research tools and need a defensible verification record before a citation goes into a filing.
Pricing
Priced against the cost of one bad citation—not hours saved.
Free
$0one citation check
One citation check. No card required. Includes the Carpenter v. United States working example.
- 1 citation check
- No account or credit card
- Carpenter v. United States working example
Per-document
Contactper brief or memo
Flat price per brief or memo verified. No subscription. Per-document pricing is quoted on request.
- One brief or memo per engagement
- Citation verification across the document
- No monthly commitment
Firm
$6,000per month
Monthly plan for unlimited documents up to a fair-use cap, with a verification audit log.
- Unlimited documents up to a fair-use cap
- Verification audit log
- Monthly firm access
Enterprise / API access is quoted on request. Full pricing.
Questions lawyers actually ask
How do I verify AI-generated legal citations?
Paste a citation or a paragraph on /verify. OWL runs five checks and shows failures explicitly. Verification is not legal advice. Human review of all outputs is required.
What five checks does OWL run?
Existence, citation format, holding support, verification path, and a human review flag. Details are on how it works. Verification is not legal advice.
What does a verification audit trail contain?
The pasted string, which checks ran, which public source was used, and whether the result was pass, fail, or needs review. See the audit-trail note. Verification is not legal advice.
Does OWL replace a lawyer, a paralegal, or Westlaw?
No. OWL is a verification layer on research you already have. It does not replace a lawyer, a paralegal, or a research database. Verification is not legal advice.
Is the first citation check free?
Yes. One citation check on /verify requires no signup and no card. Verification is not legal advice.
Contact
Use the form, email, or phone. This static site cannot send mail by itself; submit opens your email app.
Location:
Ingleside, TX 78362
United States