This is what you get back.
Below is a real run of the Lavir engine on a demonstration filing that contains the failure patterns courts keep sanctioning: a case that does not exist, a citation in a reporter that has never existed, and a quotation that is not in the opinion it is attributed to. Every line is produced by the check — nothing is written by an AI.
What we check. What we don't.
A verification service that overclaims is worse than none. Every Lavir report draws this line explicitly:
✓ Verified deterministically
- Existence — every cited case is resolved against public court records. A case is real because the record says so, not because software believes so.
- Reporter plausibility — volume, reporter, and year screened against a maintained table of real reporters and their publication eras.
- Metadata — the filing's case name and year cross-checked against the source's.
- Quotations — quoted passages matched, character for character, against the opinion text where available.
✕ Flagged, never auto-verified
- Holdings — whether a real case actually supports the proposition it is cited for requires legal judgment. We flag suspected mischaracterizations for review; we never stamp them "verified."
- Legal strategy — we do not assess the merits, and we are not a law firm.
- Anything unresolvable — if a source is unavailable, the report says "needs review." An outage is never reported as a fabrication.
Why Lavir can't hallucinate: the check pipeline contains no generative AI. Citations are found by pattern, verified by database lookup, and quotes by direct text comparison. A system that never generates has no way to invent — and every line of the report carries the source you can re-check us against.
First filing checked free.
Email the filing as-is — PDF or Word. You get the diagnostic back, whatever it finds, typically within one business day.