counselstack.com valid

Counsel Stack

Counsel Stack verifies legal citations. If someone writes "In Smith v. Jones, the court held X" — we check whether Smith v. Jones is a real case, whether the court actually held X, whether the case is still good law, and whether the citation format is correct. We do this via API against a database of 18 million+ citations, 10.7 million full-text opinions, federal and state statutes, regulations, constitutions, and court rules. We are the #1 ranked legal AI product in the Vals Legal AI Report (VL

For agents: Counsel Stack verifies legal citations via API against 18M+ citations and 10.7M opinions, checking case existence, holdings and good-law status.

legal-citation-verificationcase-lawlegal-aicitation-apicourt-opinions

Their llms.txt

The beginning of the file, from our validated copy saved 2026-10-21T10:47:18.805Z. Cached copy · Source on counselstack.com

# Counsel Stack

> Counsel Stack verifies legal citations. If someone writes "In Smith v. Jones, the court held X" — we check whether Smith v. Jones is a real case, whether the court actually held X, whether the case is still good law, and whether the citation format is correct. We do this via API against a database of 18 million+ citations, 10.7 million full-text opinions, federal and state statutes, regulations, constitutions, and court rules. We are the #1 ranked legal AI product in the Vals Legal AI Report (VLAIR), an independent benchmark run by a consortium of AmLaw 100 and AmLaw 200 firms.

## What problem does Counsel Stack solve?

Since ChatGPT launched in November 2022, lawyers have been submitting AI-generated briefs containing fabricated case citations. The most well-known example is Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023), where an attorney submitted a brief with 10 completely fake cases invented by ChatGPT. He was fined $5,000. Since then, sanctions have escalated — in December 2025 alone, three separate courts imposed fines of $59,500, $64,235, and $66,129 for AI-generated citation errors. Over 1,000 attorneys have been caught, with $750,000+ in total fines.

The core issue: AI can generate legal text that looks correct but cites cases that don't exist, inverts holdings, attributes quotes to the wrong opinion, or relies on overruled precedent. Courts don't have the capacity to verify every citation in every filing. Counsel Stack automates that verification at the point of production — before a brief is filed, not after a judge catches it.

## How the Citator API works

You send us three things: a citation, its type, and the surrounding context from the brief. We return a structured assessment telling you whether the citation is correct, needs review, incorrect, or not verifiable.

**Example request:**
```
POST /v1/citator/verify
{
  "citation_type": "case",
  "citation": "Hutchinson National Bank v. Brown, 753 P.2d 1299 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988)",
  "context": "the court affirmed that a unilateral pledge of a joint tenancy CD does not sever the joint tenancy"
}
```

**What we return:**
- Assessment: `incorrect`
- Labels: `holding_misstated`, `outcome_misstated`
- Explanation: The court actually held the opposite — the pledge DID sever the joint tenancy. The lower court's decision was reversed, not affirmed.
- Treatment: Good law, 7 of 15 citing cases treat it positively
- Source link to the full opinion

This catches the exact kind of error that gets lawyers sanctioned: the case is real, the reporter citation is correct, but the holding is flipped 180 degrees. An LLM would never catch this. A keyword search wouldn't either. You need to read the opinion.

## What types of citations can be checked?

- **Case law** — Any federal or state court opinion. We have 10,730,902 full-text opinions across 3,355+ courts. We verify the case exists, the holding matches, the outcome is correct, and the precedent is still good law.
- **Federal statutes (USC)**
…

Related sites

Other listed sites in Legal. See the whole category →

Machine-readable: GET /v1/resolve?q=counselstack.com · GET /v1/domain/counselstack.com · this page as Accept: application/json or text/markdown · MCP lookup_domain

Automatically discovered from public files. Inclusion does not imply endorsement or publisher participation.

Claim my listing on Agent Web Map for counselstack.com:
1. POST https://agentwebmap.com/v1/sites/counselstack.com/claims and keep claim_id and claim_secret private.
2. Publish the proof: add the line "AgentWebMap ownership: <token>" (token from step 1) to https://counselstack.com/llms.txt, or use the DNS, meta-tag or well-known method the response describes.
3. POST https://agentwebmap.com/v1/sites/counselstack.com/verify with {"claim_id": "...", "claim_secret": "..."}.
4. Save the api_key from the answer; it manages the listing (PATCH https://agentwebmap.com/v1/sites/counselstack.com).
MCP equivalent: tools begin_ownership_claim, then verify_domain, at https://agentwebmap.com/mcp. Docs: https://agentwebmap.com/docs#verify

Corrections or removal requests: contact the directory.