ShowYourWork Auditor
Drops an AI's chain-of-thought into your law memo, brief, or research draft and produces a side-by-side audit flagging logical gaps, unverified citations, and reasoning shortcuts before you send it to a partner or PI.
Lawyers, paralegals, and academic researchers using AI to draft memos, briefs, and literature reviews
- Highlights every factual claim in the chain-of-thought and verifies it against authoritative sources or your case file
- Detects 'argumentum ad convenientiam' patterns where the AI bends reasoning toward a desired conclusion
- Sidebar view showing which steps are essential to the conclusion versus which are decorative filler
- Counter-argument generator that stress-tests the AI's reasoning the way opposing counsel would
Professionals increasingly draft with AI, and the Quanta piece confirms the chains-of-thought they see are not faithful — creating malpractice and credibility risk that a single audit pass would defuse.
Mata v. Avianca turned AI-hallucination risk into a recognized malpractice issue, and Stanford HAI's 2024 benchmarking study found legal AI models hallucinate in ~1 of 6 queries — confirming a real, urgent verification need for lawyers and academics.AI on Trial: Legal Models Hallucinate in 1 out of 6 (or More) Benchmarking Queries ↗
Direct competitors already exist: CiteMe (Hallucinated Reference Checker), Citely.ai, Scite's Smart Citations, and LogicBalls' AI Legal Quality Control System — but none position as a side-by-side chain-of-thought auditor across legal memos, briefs, and literature reviews in one product.AI Hallucination Cases Database - Damien Charlotin ↗Citely AI Citation Checker and Academic Source Verification Tool ↗AI Citation Checker — Verify ChatGPT & Gemini | CiteMe ↗
Lawyers routinely pay $100+/seat/mo for Harvey, Spellbook, Westlaw, and LexisNexis AI add-ons, and the post-Mata malpractice exposure creates strong willingness-to-pay; however, the value is wrapper-thin against incumbent platforms that could bundle this feature.AI on Trial: Legal Models Hallucinate in 1 out of 6 (or More) Benchmarking Queries ↗A legal practitioner's guide to AI & hallucinations ↗
Hallucination/faithfulness is a structural problem likely to persist for years, sustaining category demand; however, Thomson Reuters (Westlaw), LexisNexis (Protégé), and OpenAI itself can trivially add native verification — threatening standalone viability.AI on Trial: Legal Models Hallucinate in 1 out of 6 (or More) Benchmarking Queries ↗
Citation-existence checks are straightforward via Google Scholar / court-records APIs, but chain-of-thought access depends on the reasoning model exposing its trace (OpenAI o-series does, Claude does, Gemini partially does) and 'logical gap' detection still requires a second LLM judge — non-trivial but buildable in weeks, not months.AI on Trial: Legal Models Hallucinate in 1 out of 6 (or More) Benchmarking Queries ↗