Comparing deterministic AI to generative AI for cite-checking and last mile litigation tasks
The most surprising thing I learned in July was that the latest major breakthrough in medicine is something we've had in front of us all along, we just needed to understand its potential: B vitamins. New research indicates they may hold the key to slowing Alzheimer's, reducing stroke risk, and achieving greener chemical manufacturing, objectives that industry has been spending billions to achieve with novel compounds.
It reminded me of our humble B vitamin in the Legal industry: deterministic AI (machine learning-based models that can't hallucinate), as opposed to its flashier cousin, generative AI.
Deterministic AI offers distinct cost advantages as well as accuracy advantages when it comes to litigation projects.
• It doesn't require the use of tokens to achieve its goals. For example, Clearbrief's cite checking tools that check all of the ways your cited facts and law can be wrong, Table of authorities, Smart Exhibits, and hyperlinking tools use deterministic AI instead of Gen AI. This is the best tech for these "last mile" tasks where we need the ability to audit the process, as well as 100% certainty (as this type of AI simply can't hallucinate).
• When combined with generative AI in legal tools, deterministic AI provides better accuracy for the unsexy but critical components of the results, like Clearbrief's ability to provide a hyperlinked citation after every sentence in generated text that follows the formatting you set for fact cites.
Clearbrief's hyperlinked timeline tool, for example, combines genAI with deterministic tools under the hood that create actually reliable citations after each event, all verifiable in Word.
I've had at least three conversations this week with CIOs and innovation leaders who are concerned about Legora and Harvey passing token costs through that dramatically change the cost of their subscriptions.
These firms are redirecting their litigation teams to use Clearbrief's genAI tools on tasks involving large sets of data, like timelines, as Clearbrief does not pass through token costs, integrates seamlessly with Relativity and document management systems, and handles volumes of data and file types that aren't supported by the firm's general purpose AI tools.
Just like B vitamins, we're here to help avoid inflammation in the legal system (and your costs)*, as our tools are configured to avoid the costly back and forth trial and error your litigators do that runs up the token bill. (*This joke and this newsletter was written by me, so please don't blame AI for the cheesiness!)
Book a 15 min 1:1 to walk through a cite-check or timeline with an attorney trainer
If you haven't tried Clearbrief in a while, now is a great time - new updates live this month make it easier than ever to link documents even for atypical citation styles, and to troubleshoot complex citation linking all while staying in Analyze mode.
New Rules in Florida, NY, and CA emphasizing that attorneys must lay eyes on cited sources before signing a pleading.
The ground has shifted under our feet as litigators in the past few weeks as three major jurisdictions added teeth to the rules around cite-checking.
With these developments, firms are asking themselves: is it still appropriate for partners to sign a pleading without personally laying eyes on the cites, or being able to prove the filing was cite-checked?
- The Florida Supreme Court recently released an update to the state’s general practice rules to require every attorney who signs a filing to personally represent that "the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited,” and authorized sanctions for any filing that violates that representation.
- Meanwhile, in New York, everyone is now 100% a Knicks fan, Alicia Keys & JAY Z’s “Empire State of Mind” has officially replaced Sinatra as the leading NYC anthem, and effective June 1st, Part 161 of the NY Court Rules has codified that every person signing a pleading where AI was used must independently review all cited sources.
“Any attorney or party who uses an artificial intelligence tool, as defined in 22 NYCRR 161.2(a), in preparing any paper, as defined in 22 NYCRR 161.2(b), filed in or submitted to this court or served on another party in a case before this court is required to carefully review the paper and independently ensure that it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material. By signing such paper, an attorney or party certifies that such a review has been conducted and that the paper contains no such fabricated or fictitious content. If this court determines that this requirement has not been satisfied, such attorney or party may be subject to sanction or other remedial action.”
- And on May 14, 2026, the California State Bar’s Board of Trustees approved updated guidance on the use of generative AI in legal practice.
According to the guidance, “[a] lawyer’s professional judgment cannot be delegated to AI and remains the lawyer’s responsibility at all times. . . . As a result, lawyers remain responsible for reviewing and approving all outputs, decisions, advice, and filings.”
- To that end, the Ninth Circuit’s disciplinary order in a recent case makes it clear that an attorney’s signature on a brief constitutes a personal attestation that the signing attorney has read every cited authority with their own eyes - a duty that cannot be delegated, disclaimed, or excused by the use of AI tools or subordinate drafters.
The court held that it is no excuse to entrust substantive cite checking to subordinates; the attorney’s signature was an attestation that he personally reviewed the contents of the brief, including the cited authorities, and that they were accurate. The court also made clear what "review" actually requires: a competent and diligent attorney cannot decline to "vet" citations, in a brief he signs, for substantive validity. The court called the attorney’s admission that he and the other attorney "do not normally vet citations used by the Brief Writer during our review" an "extraordinary confession."
The court ordered that all attorneys at their firm must include in all future filings (!) a statement made under penalty of perjury certifying the attorney signing the brief has personally reviewed the filing and that all citations and quotations refer to existing authority.
Clearbrief is the gold standard in cite-checking, with approximately 70% of the AmLaw 20 adopting it. Why? It's the only tool that automatically connects every citation in your brief directly to the underlying source document, inside Word, in seconds, for factual evidence cites as well as legal authorities.
Clearbrief displays the hyperlinks in Word as you go, satisfying your professional responsibility to lay eyes on cited sources.
Thanks to our direct integrations with LexisNexis and Fastcase vLex (Clio), and well as the places containing factual evidence like iManage, Relativity, and PACER.
Clearbrief's Analyzer also flags the widest variety of potential mistakes thanks to our patented technology that does not rely on generative AI (it uses deterministic AI that cannot hallucinate).
And after a user runs the Analyzer, Clearbrief creates a Cite Check report and a hyperlinked version for filing so the firm has an audit trail to prove the review occurred.
