Suggest-only Every check produces findings, never an applied edit. You stay the author of record; nothing is changed for you.
No silent caps Every check reports what it could not examine, an unuploaded record, a citation outside the public corpus, a citator step we do not run, as an explicit gap. The checks with hard ground truth come first.
Citation verifier
Partially live
Live today For every authority the brief cites, it looks the case up in the public case-law record, never from memory, and confirms the case exists and that the party names, court, and year match what the brief says. It tells you plainly when a citation falls outside the corpus it can reach.
Coming next Verifying that quoted text and pin cites actually appear in the opinion, and that the case genuinely stands for the proposition it is cited for. Unlocked by full-opinion corpus access.
Does not It is not a citator: on its own it does not tell you whether a case is still good law (overruled, vacated, superseded). That needs a licensed citator (KeyCite, Shepard's, BCite) we do not integrate. Its reach is the public case-law record: a citation living only in a proprietary Westlaw or Lexis reporter comes back as an explicit coverage gap to check by hand, never passed as verified.
Hallucination catcher
Coming online
Does Checks that every represented piece of text is actually in its claimed source: quotes appearing verbatim, pin cites landing on the right page, statutory text matching the current version, and "the court held X" not being a paraphrase of something the source materially does not say. Where the citation verifier asks whether the authority is real and rightly used, this asks whether every quoted or paraphrased text is real, including against your own record and opposing filings when you upload them.
Does not If the record or exhibits are not uploaded, it cannot check record cites, and says so per assertion ("record not provided"), never a pass. It verifies fidelity to the source, not whether the underlying legal argument is correct.
Adversarial counsel
Coming online
Does Simulates the adversarial process the brief will actually face: opposing counsel's strongest counterargument and the distinguishing case they would cite, the objection a skeptical judge flags first, where an argument outruns the record, and the weakest link in the chain of reasoning. Every point is anchored to real retrieved authority or a specific span of the record or opposing filing, never a generic "a court might disagree."
Does not It runs degraded without matter context: with no opposing filings or record, it produces only generic counterarguments, and flags them as such. It surfaces threats to the draft; it does not yet propose affirmative winning theories the brief has not made. Like every check, it suggests; it never rewrites.
Doctrine and standard of review
Coming online
Does Verifies you are arguing under the right legal standard for your court and procedural posture: the correct standard of review (de novo, abuse of discretion, clear error), complete claim or defense elements, correctly allocated burden of proof, and a standard drawn from controlling authority in your jurisdiction rather than one smuggled in from another circuit. Every check is grounded in a retrieved controlling case, never the model's memory.
Does not It does not tell you whether a case is still good law, the same boundary as the citation verifier: that needs a licensed citator we do not integrate. It checks the standard, not the merits of how you apply it.