lavir
Sample diagnostic

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.

lavir · diagnostic reportfiling_demo · 4 citations checked · demonstration
✕ Harmon v. Delft, 812 F.3d 401 (9th Cir. 2016)CASE DOES NOT EXIST
No matching case in the primary-source corpus for 812 F.3d 401. The citation is well-formed — which is exactly how AI-fabricated cases look — but the reporter volume and page resolve to nothing.
✕ Reyes v. Calder, 999 F.9th 12345 (2091)REPORTER DOES NOT EXIST
Caught before any database lookup: there is no reporter "F.9th," and the year is impossible. Rejected deterministically against Lavir's reporter rule table.
✓ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)verified · quote confirmed in opinion
✓ Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)verified against primary sources
VERDICT: FAIL — 2 outliers corrected · re-check after revision, then the filing is eligible for a Lavir Verified record
Checked against public court records via the Free Law Project's CourtListener corpus.
Real reports, published

Download two actual Client Reports.

Not mockups — numbered reports issued to a practicing litigator who stress-tested Lavir with deliberately seeded errors, republished as samples with consent (client identity withheld, findings unaltered). Every finding carries a clickable link to the free public source, so you can check our checking.

LVR-2026-001 — claim-construction excerpt

  • 1 fabricated case (caption built from two judges' names)
  • 1 fabricated quotation · 1 corrupted citation · 1 misquotation
  • 2 authorities fully verified · VERDICT: FAIL

Download PDF →

LVR-2026-002 — administrative-law excerpt

  • Wrong-volume citation that survives eyeball review (467 vs 468 U.S.)
  • Authority no longer good law — Chevron, overruled by Loper Bright (2024)
  • Corrected cite provided · VERDICT: FAIL

Download PDF →

Scope — stated plainly

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.

Get your own

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.

Submit a filing