Why keep a log at all
A verification step that only lives in someone's memory is hard to prove two months after filing, when the associate who did it is on another matter. Courts that sanction AI-fabricated citations look at whether the lawyer checked. In Aguilar v. Crawford Group, the court wrote that whether AI was used or not, the lawyer did not confirm the truthfulness of his citations. A dated row with a name on it is evidence of the check. California SB 574, effective January 1, 2027, puts the duty on the responsible attorney personally.
The template
One row per citation. Keep it with the filing, not in a separate system nobody opens.
| Field | What goes in it |
|---|---|
| Citation | The cite exactly as it appears in the filing |
| Proposition | The sentence in the brief the citation supports |
| Primary source opened | Court site, official reporter, statute database. Link or docket number |
| Supports the proposition? | Yes, no, or partly, and the page or paragraph you checked |
| Quote check | For any quotation: matched to the source, yes or no |
| Treatment | Result of a citator check (still good law, distinguished, overruled) |
| Verified by | The attorney, by name |
| Date | When the check happened, not when the brief was finished |
| AI note | Was AI used to find or draft this citation? Which tool? |
Fill it in as you go
Fill each row when the cite-check happens. A row written after the brief is done is a memory, not a record. If the person who checked the citation leaves the firm, you should still be able to tell who it was.
Three columns do most of the work:
- Supports the proposition. A check that confirms the case exists catches invented cases. It misses a real case cited for something it doesn't say. That second failure is the one an existence check walks past. Open the case, find the passage, read it against your sentence.
- Quote check. Compare every quotation to the source text. Invented or altered quotes are a separate failure from invented cases.
- AI note. If a court or statute asks you to disclose AI use, this column is where the answer already lives.
Pair it with the checklist
The log records the check. The steps for doing it are in how to verify AI legal citations and the pre-filing AI verification checklist. If a citation fails, what happens if AI hallucinates in a court filing covers the next steps.
Who owns it
Name one person per filing as the log owner. That person doesn't have to verify every citation, but every row needs a named verifier, and the signing attorney should review the finished log before filing. If your firm is in California, the signing attorney is the one the statute holds responsible.
Sources
- Aguilar v. Crawford Group docket, CourtListener (Order quoted in our case summary)
- Holland & Knight on California SB 574 (Oct 1, 2026)
- Morgan Lewis on California SB 574 (Oct 2, 2026)
Questions and answers
Is a citation verification log legally required?
We haven't found a rule that requires a log in this form. California's SB 574 requires the responsible attorney to personally verify citations, and a log is a practical way to show that you did.
Who should fill in the log?
The person who actually opens the source and reads it. The signing attorney reviews the completed log before filing.
Should the log include citations that didn't come from AI?
Yes. California's amended rule, as Morgan Lewis reads it, applies whether or not AI was used. One standard for every citation is easier to run than two.
How long should you keep it?
Keep it as long as you keep the filing's file. We haven't found a rule setting a retention period for these logs, so follow your firm's file-retention policy.
Can AI fill in the log?
It can pre-populate the citation and proposition columns. The verified-by, supports-the-proposition and date columns need a person who opened the source.
Operational information, not legal advice. The log is our template; we found no rule that requires this exact format. Check your court and jurisdiction.