Red Flag Detection Checklist

The Problem

AI hallucinations aren't always obvious. Fabricated content often looks plausible - correct format, confident tone, reasonable-sounding logic. You need to know what to look for.

The Solution

Learn to recognise the red flags. They tell you where to look first. They do not tell you what is safe: check every citation and every statement of law against an authoritative source before you use it, whether or not it shows a red flag.

The court's statement of that duty, and the consequences of not meeting it, are in The Citation Verification Rule.

The examples on this page are made up to show each pattern, except where a real case is named.

Red Flag Checklist

🚩 Red Flag #1: Citation Format Is Slightly Off

What to look for:

• Unusual court abbreviations: "EWCC" instead of "EWCA"
• Wrong year format: "2024 EWCA Civ 123" instead of "[2024] EWCA Civ 123"
• Missing elements: No paragraph number when there should be one
• Inconsistent format: Italics in one citation, regular text in another

Example:

❌ Smith v. Jones, EWCA Civ 456 (2024)  ← Wrong format
✅ Smith v Jones [2024] EWCA Civ 456   ← Correct format

Why it happens: AI learns citation patterns but sometimes mixes formats or makes up abbreviations.

🚩 Red Flag #2: Case Name Sounds "Too Perfect"

What to look for:

• Case name perfectly matches your query
• Generic or common surnames: Smith, Jones, Brown, Johnson
• Case name is oddly descriptive: Directors' Duties in Takeover Ltd

Example:

❌ "Re Data Protection Breach Ltd [2024] EWHC 123 (Ch)" ← Suspiciously on-point
✅ "WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12" ← Real case name

Why it happens: AI generates plausible-sounding names that fit the context. Real cases often have less obviously relevant names.

🚩 Red Flag #3: Recent Case AI "Knows" Too Well

What to look for:

• A case decided recently
• AI describes the decision in detail without caveat
• AI quotes from judgment

Example:

❌ "In Smith v Jones [2026] EWCA Civ 45, the Court held that..."
   ← A case decided in the last few months is suspicious

✅ "Recent cases in this area include X v Y [2024]... however,
   I recommend checking for developments since my knowledge cutoff."

Why it matters: A model's training data ends at a cut-off date. A case decided after that date can only have come from a search the tool ran or from the model's invention. Find out which, and read the judgment yourself.

🚩 Red Flag #4: No Neutral Citation or Parallel Citation

What to look for:

• Only one citation format provided
• No [Year] format version
• Can't find when you Google the case name + year

Example:

❌ Smith v Jones, High Court, 2024
   ← No proper citation

✅ Smith v Jones [2024] EWHC 123 (Comm), [2024] 1 WLR 456
   ← Full citation with neutral citation and law report

🚩 Red Flag #5: Obscure Court Without Explanation

What to look for:

• References to unusual tribunals or courts
• Foreign courts cited for domestic law
• Court level doesn't match issue importance

Example:

❌ "The North Regional Employment Tribunal held in 2024..."
   ← No such tribunal exists

✅ "The Employment Tribunal (Leeds) held in Smith v ABC Ltd..."
   ← Correct court reference

🚩 Red Flag #6: Legal Principle Stated With Absolute Certainty

What to look for:

• "Always," "never," "in all cases"
• No qualifications or exceptions mentioned
• Sounds too simple for a complex area

Example:

❌ "Directors always owe a fiduciary duty to shareholders."
   ← Too absolute, missing nuance

✅ "The general duties in sections 171 to 177 of the Companies Act 2006
   are owed by a director to the company (s.170(1)). I have not checked
   whether anything on these facts changes that."
   ← Cites the provision and says what it has not checked

Why it matters: A statement of law with no qualification and no authority gives you nothing to check it against. Ask for the authority, then read it.

🚩 Red Flag #7: Statute Citation Without Full Reference

What to look for:

• "Section 5 requires..." ← Section 5 of what?
• Regulation cited without year or SI number
• Amendment not specified

Example:

❌ "Under Section 98, the employer must show..."
   ← Which Act?

✅ "Under Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996..."
   ← Full reference

🚩 Red Flag #8: Quotes Without Attribution

What to look for:

• Direct quotes not attributed to a source
• Judge quoted but no case cited
• Academic commentary without author/work

Example:

❌ "As Lord Denning said, justice must be seen to be done."
   ← Which case? And was it Lord Denning?

✅ "In R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256,
   Lord Hewart CJ said that justice must be seen to be done."
   ← Names the judge, the case and the report

What To Do When You See Red Flags

Any red flag: Stop and check that point before you read further

No red flags: You still check every citation before you use it

Action steps:

1. Stop using the AI output
2. Check citations on authoritative sources (Find Case Law, legislation.gov.uk, BAILII, Westlaw UK, LexisNexis)
3. You can ask the AI where a citation came from, but its answer is not verification. Only the source is
4. If you can't verify it, don't use it
5. Start over with a more careful prompt (use "Citation Verification Rule")

Pro Tips

Keep a personal "hallucination log":

• When you catch AI fabricating, note the tool, the date, what you asked and which red flag gave it away
• Keep a separate record for each tool your firm uses
• Read the log before you rely on that tool for the same kind of task again

This guide does not rank tools:

• This site has not published a comparison of how often any tool fabricates, so this guide does not say which does it more or less
• A vendor can change the model behind a tool, so a record from last year may not describe the tool you use today
• Your own log, kept up to date, is the evidence that counts

When a tool links to its sources:

• A link lets you open the source and check it
• A link is not proof: read the source to see that it exists and says what the answer says it does

Quick Reference

Red Flag Checklist:

• Citation format slightly off?
• Case name suspiciously perfect?
• Recent case AI shouldn't know?
• Missing proper citation?
• Obscure court without explanation?
• Legal principle stated with absolute certainty?
• Statute cited without full reference?
• Quotes without attribution?

Any red flag = stop and check that point

No red flag = still check every citation

Remember: A plausible-sounding AI response with confident tone can still be completely fabricated. Verify before you rely on it.