Search finds the words.
We check the meaning.

Why not just search for the words?

Searching finds the words. It cannot tell "the court must" from "the court must not", because the words are the same. It cannot tell "the judge decided X" from "the losing side argued X", because the words are the same. Those two mistakes are exactly how a lawyer ends up citing a case for something it never said.

We tested a word-matching rule on the same cases. Set it to catch as much as our check, and it certifies five times as many wrong citations. Set it to be as careful, and it misses half.

What our technology does instead

It reads a sentence and answers one small question with a probability: does this passage say that, or the opposite, or neither. And who is saying it, the court or a party. It does not write anything and it does not guess beyond what is on the page. When it is not sure, it says so, and we show you that.

Why this over the others

• The tools you already pay for check whether a case exists. So do we, for free, against ten million opinions.
• Nobody else checks whether the case actually says what your sentence says. That is the second check, and it is the mistake courts are sanctioning people for.
• Every flag shows its evidence: the register entry, or the paragraph, so you can overrule it in a glance.
• We tell you what we cannot check. About a quarter of citations in a real brief are Westlaw or Lexis numbers, and no open tool can verify those. We list them instead of guessing.
• We publish how often we are wrong. Nobody else does. The numbers.
• Nothing you paste is stored. How that works.

ProofreadPricing