ChatGPT makes up cases.
CommonBench cites real ones.

Generic AI chatbots hallucinate case law. Lawyers have been sanctioned for relying on them. CommonBench is built differently — every citation is verified against real legal databases.

FeatureChatGPT / Generic AICommonBench
Case citations Frequently hallucinated Verified against BAILII, AustLII, HKLII, CourtListener
Jurisdiction awareness Generic, US-biased UK, HK, SG, AU, US — correct terminology and procedure
Procedural pathway Doesn’t tell you what to file Court, form, fee, deadline, pre-action protocol
Opponent analysis Not available Defence anticipation + weakness mapping
Case strength score Not available Numeric 0–100 with 6–10 weighted factors
Costs estimate Vague or absent Broken down by litigation stage + costs exposure
Limitation calculator Not available Specific dates and deadline warnings
Free ADR alternatives Not flagged Ombudsmen, tribunals, and free schemes identified
Court sanctions risk🚨 Multiple lawyers sanctioned for fake citations Citations verified — zero hallucination risk

When AI citations go wrong

Real cases where lawyers relied on AI-generated legal research with fabricated citations.

Mata v Avianca (2023) — US Federal Court

“Technological advances are commonplace, and there is nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance. But existing rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings.”

— Judge P. Kevin Castel, Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F.Supp.3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

Park v Kim (2024) — US Second Circuit

The Second Circuit referred an attorney for disciplinary proceedings after she submitted a brief citing a nonexistent case generated by ChatGPT. The court held that the use of AI tools “does not excuse an attorney from separately ensuring that submissions to the Court are accurate or legally tenable.”

Park v. Kim, No. 22-2057 (2d Cir. 2024)

UK Solicitors Regulation Authority

The SRA advises that solicitors using AI tools remain fully bound by the SRA Code of Conduct, including obligations of competence and service. Solicitors must review and verify AI-generated outputs before relying on them or sharing them with clients or courts.

SRA, Compliance tips for solicitors regarding the use of AI and technology (Solicitors Regulation Authority)

This wouldn’t happen with CommonBench. Every citation is checked against real legal databases before it reaches you.

Ready to try legal AI that actually works?

Subscribe and start getting verified legal analysis in seconds.

Subscribe →