Workflow template for legal and contracts
Citation and quotation check
Before a draft is filed or relied on, the associate or paralegal has one worksheet: every citation, quotation and record cite counted, then set against the sources supplied, and every good-law check left for the lawyer. No result calls anything confirmed; each says only what was compared.
This workflow template prepares legal work for a lawyer to review. It gives no legal advice and has not been reviewed by a lawyer. A lawyer decides and signs.
Add it to a workflow in the Fully Powered Planner, beside the teams and roles that will run it. Book a fit call
The outcome
The person doing the cite check stops hunting and starts deciding. Every item is found and counted first, so the worksheet opens with plain coverage, then gives each one of four results named for exactly what was compared: matches the supplied text, differs, partly matches the supplied text, or could not be checked. The draft’s words and the source’s words sit side by side, with every word at the place cited that the draft leaves out listed in full, so the signing lawyer sees each problem without reopening a file.
This is a safeguard against the invented citation. A citation no supplied source answers to is never quietly passed: it is marked to be verified by the lawyer and goes to the top, to be pulled in the firm’s research service before anyone relies on it. Quotations are compared character by character, so a dropped word or a tidied spelling shows up before the court does. What it cannot catch: if someone supplies a made-up text for an invented or wrong authority, the worksheet compares the draft with that text like any other. That is why every authority stays on the good-law list for the lawyer to check in the firm’s own research service.
The worksheet is preparation for a lawyer. It gives no legal advice. It decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines. It never says an authority is good law, current or binding: those checks are listed for the lawyer to run. It names no authority from memory, edits nothing in the draft, and sends, files, signs and calendars nothing. The responsible lawyer confirms accuracy, current validity and suitability before the work is filed or relied on.
Who starts the work, and when
An associate or a litigation paralegal starts it when a draft is close to final and its sources have been pulled. The responsible lawyer who will sign is named on the request and confirms the worksheet line by line; in a company’s legal department that is in-house counsel. Where the draft comes from outside counsel and the company has no lawyer of its own, the worksheet is addressed to outside counsel and never handed to the business as an answer.
It is not for writing or rewriting any part of a draft, finding an authority, saying what an authority means, judging an argument, counting a deadline, or checking the house style of citations.
What they supply
- The draft, or the section to check, with page and line numbers or numbered paragraphs, footnotes included.
- A source list with six columns, headed “Source ID”, “Cited in the draft as”, “What it is”, “File”, “Pages, lines or Bates range supplied” and “Whole source supplied”. If the headings differ, the work stops and asks.
- The source texts: authorities as printed from the firm’s research service, transcript pages, exhibits and the Bates-stamped production, whole or in part.
- The request: the matter, the draft and version, who is running the check, the responsible lawyer and the firm’s research service.
The workflow template works only from these documents. It brings in no authority, rule or summary from anywhere else.
What comes out
One worksheet, headed as a draft for the named lawyer:
- Coverage: items found, items compared, and the count of each result.
- Items: the draft’s words beside the source’s words at the place cited, any quotation difference, each part of the sentence and whether the passage states it, every word and sentence at that place the draft leaves out, and the result.
- Not in the sources supplied: every citation with no matching source, marked to be verified by the lawyer and first in line to be pulled.
- Good-law checks outstanding: every authority cited, with a line for who ran the check and what it showed.
- Lawyer to confirm: a line for every open point, then completeness and suitability.
The person who ran it re-checks the problem items and a few matches by hand before the lawyer sees it. The draft’s owners make any corrections.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. The firm, its people, the parties, the witness, the Court of Appeal of Eastmere, the Eastmere Appellate Reports (E.A.R.), the three authorities and every page below are invented. None is a real firm, person, court, case or report, and nothing here states any real law.
The associate’s four inputs come first, in full, then what the workflow template prepares. The request names the matter, the draft, the person running the check, the responsible lawyer, the research service and today’s date.
Input 1: the request
Sent by Nadia Ferreol, associate, on Wednesday 11 November 2026.
Fernhollow: please run the cite check on section III.B of our opposition
(version 3, 10 November 2026). It is one page, page 6 of the brief.
Matter: Fernhollow Cold Storage, Inc. v. Greywater Pallet Co. We act for
Fernhollow.
Running the check: Nadia Ferreol, associate.
Responsible lawyer, who signs: Tobias Kettering, partner.
Research service: the firm's research subscription.
Today's date: Wednesday 11 November 2026.
Attached: the draft page, the source list and the four sources on it.
Input 2: the draft
FERNHOLLOW'S OPPOSITION · SECTION III.B · VERSION 3 · 10 NOVEMBER 2026
Page 6
1 B. Fernhollow's notice of the defects was timely.
2 A buyer who finds a defect in delivered goods must give the seller
3 notice "in reasonable time, so that the seller can still inspect the
4 defect." Halvorsen Tile Co. v. Quenby Haulage, Inc., 41 E.A.R. 3d 118,
5 124 (Eastmere Ct. App. 2019). What is reasonable depends
6 on the nature of the goods, and notice within ten days is always
7 reasonable. Id. at 126. Notice need not take any particular form; "a
8 [buyer's] email that identifies the shipment and the problem is
9 enough." Marlow Mills v. Sorrel Point Grain Co., 52 E.A.R. 3d 40, 47
10 (Eastmere Ct. App. 2022). And a seller who has itself caused the delay
11 cannot rely on it. Pennick v. Ostrova Holdings, 38 E.A.R. 3d 301, 309
12 (Eastmere Ct. App. 2017).
13
14 Here, Fernhollow's receiving manager found the cracked pallets on
15 March 3 and wrote to Greywater the next morning. Tr. of Dep. of Corinne
16 Abello 44:9-15 ("I saw the cracks on the third and I emailed their
17 dispatch first thing on the fourth."). Greywater's own dispatch log
18 records the email arriving at 7:52 a.m. on March 4. GPC000412. Its
19 quality manager later wrote that the batch had been "pulled for
20 inspection." GPC000588.
Input 3: the source list
Source ID | Cited in the draft as | What it is | File | Pages, lines or Bates range supplied | Whole source supplied
S1 | Halvorsen Tile Co. v. Quenby Haulage, Inc. | Opinion, Court of Appeal of Eastmere, printed from the research subscription | S1-halvorsen.pdf | pp. 118, 124, 126 | no
S2 | Marlow Mills v. Sorrel Point Grain Co. | Opinion, Court of Appeal of Eastmere, printed from the research subscription | S2-marlow.pdf | pp. 40, 47 | no
S3 | Tr. of Dep. of Corinne Abello | Deposition transcript, Corinne Abello, 2 October 2026 | S3-abello.pdf | 44:1-25 | no
S4 | GPC (Bates prefix) | Greywater Pallet Co. document production | S4-gpc.pdf | GPC000410-GPC000415 | no
Input 4: the sources
S1, three pages:
--- 41 E.A.R. 3d 118 ---
HALVORSEN TILE CO., Appellant,
v.
QUENBY HAULAGE, INC., Respondent.
No. EA-17-2290. Court of Appeal of Eastmere. Decided March 22, 2019.
--- 124 ---
The buyer's duty is a short one to state. A buyer who finds a defect in
delivered goods must tell the seller of it in reasonable time, so that the
seller can still inspect the defect. The duty does not turn on the size of
the defect.
--- 126 ---
What is reasonable depends on the nature of the goods and the
circumstances of the sale. Notice given within ten days of discovery is
reasonable for goods of this kind. A longer period may also be
reasonable; we do not decide that here.
S2, two pages:
--- 52 E.A.R. 3d 40 ---
MARLOW MILLS, Appellant,
v.
SORREL POINT GRAIN CO., Respondent.
No. EA-20-0871. Court of Appeal of Eastmere. Decided June 14, 2021.
--- 47 ---
Notice need take no set form, and a purchaser's e-mail that identifes
the shipment and the problem is enough. The seller in this case received
exactly that.
S3, one transcript page:
Corinne Abello · October 2, 2026 Page 44
1 Q. And before that you worked at the Harlow Street site?
2 A. For about two years, yes.
3 Q. Then you moved to the Linden Road warehouse?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. And you've been there since?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. DUNMORE: Objection, asked and answered.
8 A. Yes, since 2023.
9 Q. Ms. Abello, you're the receiving manager at Fernhollow?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In March of this year, when did you first see the cracked
12 pallets from Greywater?
13 A. I saw the cracks on the third and I emailed their dispatch
14 first thing on the fourth.
15 Q. Did anyone at Greywater answer that email?
16 A. Not that day. Someone called the next morning.
17 Q. Do you remember who called?
18 A. I don't. It was someone from their quality team.
19 Q. Did you keep the cracked pallets?
20 A. We set them aside in bay four.
21 Q. Are they still there?
22 A. As far as I know.
23 Q. Did you photograph them?
24 A. My team did, that same morning.
25 Q. Let's mark those photographs as the next exhibit.
S4, six production pages:
GPC000410 Delivery receipt. Lot 7729. Delivered to Fernhollow Cold
Storage, Linden Road, 26 February. Signed: C. Abello.
GPC000411 Delivery receipt. Lot 7730. Delivered to Fernhollow Cold
Storage, Linden Road, 27 February. Signed: C. Abello.
GPC000412 Delivery receipt. Lot 7731. Delivered to Fernhollow Cold
Storage, Linden Road, 2 March. Signed: R. Tamsin.
GPC000413 Greywater Pallet Co. · Dispatch log · 3 March
06:10 Truck 14 out, lot 7732. 15:45 Truck 14 back.
GPC000414 Greywater Pallet Co. · Dispatch log · 4 March
07:52 Inbound email from Fernhollow receiving: "cracked
pallets lot 7731". 08:30 Forwarded to quality.
GPC000415 Greywater Pallet Co. · Dispatch log · 5 March
09:05 Call to Fernhollow receiving re lot 7731.
What the workflow template prepares
A short note to the associate, then the worksheet.
Nadia, the worksheet for section III.B is below; it covers page 6 only, as you asked, and not the rest of the brief. Before comparing anything I found 7 items: 4 citations to authority, 3 citations to the record, and 4 quotations, every one of them inside a citation. 5 of the 7 could be compared with the text you supplied: 2 match the supplied text, 2 differ and 1 partly matches it. 2 could not be checked: Pennick v. Ostrova Holdings is not in the sources supplied and is marked to be verified by the lawyer, and GPC000588 is outside the production pages supplied.
Still to do, by people: re-check A2, A3 and R2 by hand, and both matched items, A1 and R1, since there are fewer than five; have Pennick pulled from the research subscription and GPC000588 from the matter file; and give the worksheet to Tobias Kettering. None of the three authorities has been checked for good law here. I have changed nothing in the draft and have filed, sent, signed or calendared nothing.
DRAFT CITE-CHECK WORKSHEET · FOR TOBIAS KETTERING TO CONFIRM
A record of what was compared with the sources supplied. Not legal advice.
It decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege,
conflicts or deadlines, and does not say that any authority is good law
or current. The draft has not been changed, and nothing has been filed,
sent, signed or calendared.
Matter: Fernhollow Cold Storage, Inc. v. Greywater Pallet Co.
Draft: Fernhollow's opposition, version 3 of 10 November 2026, part
checked: section III.B, page 6, as the request asked
Prepared for: Tobias Kettering, partner, who confirms and signs
Checked by: Nadia Ferreol, associate, 11 November 2026
COVERAGE
- Found in the part checked: 7 items. Citations to authority: 4.
Citations to the record: 3. Quotations with no citation: 0. Quotations
in all: 4.
- Compared with the supplied text: 5 of 7.
- MATCHES THE SUPPLIED TEXT: 2. DIFFERS: 2. PARTLY MATCHES THE SUPPLIED
TEXT: 1. COULD NOT BE CHECKED: 2.
- Good law and current: checked here for 0 of 3 authorities. All 3 are
listed under GOOD-LAW CHECKS OUTSTANDING.
ITEMS
Every authority below is one the draft cites, to be verified by the
lawyer. Each result says only what was compared with the text supplied.
A1. AUTHORITY · draft p. 6, lines 2-5
Draft: A buyer who finds a defect in delivered goods must give the
seller notice "in reasonable time, so that the seller can still
inspect the defect."
Cited as: Halvorsen Tile Co. v. Quenby Haulage, Inc., 41 E.A.R. 3d 118,
124 (Eastmere Ct. App. 2019).
Source: S1, Halvorsen Tile Co. v. Quenby Haulage, Inc.
Citation details: match the source's title page (p. 118)
Place cited: found
Source at that place: "The buyer's duty is a short one to state. A
buyer who finds a defect in delivered goods must tell the seller of
it in reasonable time, so that the seller can still inspect the
defect. The duty does not turn on the size of the defect." (p. 124)
Quotation: identical
Marked changes: none
Each part of the draft's words:
(1) the quotation, compared above
(2) "A buyer who finds a defect in delivered goods": stated in the
same words
(3) "must give the seller notice": stated in other words: "must tell
the seller of it"
Left out of the draft (every item listed, none chosen):
From the sentences the draft rests on: none
Other sentences at that place: "The buyer's duty is a short one to
state." (p. 124); "The duty does not turn on the size of the
defect." (p. 124)
Result: MATCHES THE SUPPLIED TEXT
Why: the place was found, the quotation is identical, every part is
stated at p. 124 and nothing in that sentence is left out.
A2. AUTHORITY · draft p. 6, lines 5-7
Draft: What is reasonable depends on the nature of the goods, and
notice within ten days is always reasonable.
Cited as: Id. at 126.
Source: S1, Halvorsen Tile Co. v. Quenby Haulage, Inc.
Citation details: short form, refers back to A1
Place cited: found
Source at that place: "What is reasonable depends on the nature of the
goods and the circumstances of the sale. Notice given within ten days
of discovery is reasonable for goods of this kind. A longer period
may also be reasonable; we do not decide that here." (p. 126)
Quotation: none in this item
Marked changes: none
Each part of the draft's words:
(1) "What is reasonable depends on the nature of the goods": stated
in the same words
(2) "notice within ten days is ... reasonable": stated in other
words: "Notice given within ten days of discovery is reasonable for
goods of this kind."
(3) "always": not found at the place cited
Left out of the draft (every item listed, none chosen):
From the sentences the draft rests on: "and the circumstances of the
sale" (p. 126); "given" (p. 126); "of discovery" (p. 126); "for
goods of this kind" (p. 126)
Other sentences at that place: "A longer period may also be
reasonable; we do not decide that here." (p. 126)
Result: PARTLY MATCHES THE SUPPLIED TEXT
Why: "always" is not found at p. 126, and words of the two sentences
the draft rests on are not in the draft.
A3. AUTHORITY · draft p. 6, lines 7-10
Draft: Notice need not take any particular form; "a [buyer's] email
that identifies the shipment and the problem is enough."
Cited as: Marlow Mills v. Sorrel Point Grain Co., 52 E.A.R. 3d 40, 47
(Eastmere Ct. App. 2022).
Source: S2, Marlow Mills v. Sorrel Point Grain Co.
Citation details: differ: draft "2022", source "Decided June 14, 2021"
(title page, p. 40); the rest match
Place cited: found
Source at that place: "Notice need take no set form, and a purchaser's
e-mail that identifes the shipment and the problem is enough. The
seller in this case received exactly that." (p. 47)
Quotation: differs: draft "email", source "e-mail"; draft "identifies",
source "identifes", with no [sic] in the draft
Marked changes: "[buyer's]" in place of the source's "purchaser's"
Each part of the draft's words:
(1) "Notice need not take any particular form": stated in other
words: "Notice need take no set form"
(2) the quotation, compared above
Left out of the draft (every item listed, none chosen):
From the sentences the draft rests on: none
Other sentences at that place: "The seller in this case received
exactly that." (p. 47)
Result: DIFFERS
Why: the year differs from the title page, and the quotation has two
unmarked changes.
A4. AUTHORITY · draft p. 6, lines 10-12
Draft: And a seller who has itself caused the delay cannot rely on it.
Cited as: Pennick v. Ostrova Holdings, 38 E.A.R. 3d 301, 309
(Eastmere Ct. App. 2017).
Source: Not in the sources supplied, to be verified by the lawyer
Citation details: not compared
Place cited: not compared
Source at that place: not compared
Quotation: none in this item
Marked changes: none
Each part of the draft's words: not compared
Left out of the draft: not compared
Result: COULD NOT BE CHECKED
Why: no source on the list is cited in the draft as Pennick v. Ostrova
Holdings.
R1. RECORD · draft p. 6, lines 14-17
Draft: Here, Fernhollow's receiving manager found the cracked pallets
on March 3 and wrote to Greywater the next morning.
Cited as: Tr. of Dep. of Corinne Abello 44:9-15 ("I saw the cracks on
the third and I emailed their dispatch first thing on the fourth.").
Source: S3, Tr. of Dep. of Corinne Abello
Citation details: match the page headings (witness: Corinne Abello);
date not given in the draft; the source shows "October 2, 2026"
Place cited: found
Source at that place: "Q. Ms. Abello, you're the receiving manager at
Fernhollow? A. Yes. Q. In March of this year, when did you first see
the cracked pallets from Greywater? A. I saw the cracks on the third
and I emailed their dispatch first thing on the fourth. Q. Did anyone
at Greywater answer that email?" (44:9-15)
Quotation: identical (44:13-14)
Marked changes: none
Each part of the draft's words:
(1) the quotation, compared above
(2) "Fernhollow's receiving manager": stated with words from a
question: question "you're the receiving manager at Fernhollow?"
(44:9), answer "Yes." (44:10)
(3) "found the cracked pallets": stated with words from a question:
question "when did you first see the cracked pallets from
Greywater?" (44:11-12), answer "I saw the cracks" (44:13)
(4) "on March 3": stated with words from a question: question "In
March of this year" (44:11), answer "on the third" (44:13)
(5) "wrote to Greywater": stated with words from a question: question
"the cracked pallets from Greywater" (44:11-12), answer "I emailed
their dispatch" (44:13-14)
(6) "the next morning": stated in other words: "first thing on the
fourth" (44:14)
Left out of the draft (every item listed, none chosen):
From the sentences the draft rests on: none
Other sentences at that place: "Q. Did anyone at Greywater answer
that email?" (44:15)
Result: MATCHES THE SUPPLIED TEXT
Why: the place was found, the quotation is identical and every part is
stated at 44:9-15, four of them with words from a question.
R2. RECORD · draft p. 6, lines 17-18
Draft: Greywater's own dispatch log records the email arriving at 7:52
a.m. on March 4.
Cited as: GPC000412.
Source: S4, GPC (Bates prefix)
Citation details: match the stamps (prefix GPC, six digits)
Place cited: found
Source at that place: "Delivery receipt. Lot 7731. Delivered to
Fernhollow Cold Storage, Linden Road, 2 March. Signed: R. Tamsin."
(GPC000412)
Quotation: none in this item
Marked changes: none
Each part of the draft's words:
(1) "Greywater's own dispatch log": not found at the place cited; it
appears at GPC000414: "Greywater Pallet Co. · Dispatch log"
(2) "records the email arriving": not found at the place cited; it
appears at GPC000414: "Inbound email from Fernhollow receiving"
(3) "at 7:52 a.m.": not found at the place cited; it appears at
GPC000414: "07:52"
(4) "on March 4": not found at the place cited; it appears at
GPC000414: "Dispatch log · 4 March"
Left out of the draft: not listed: no part found at the place cited
Result: DIFFERS
Why: no part is found at GPC000412; each part appears at GPC000414.
R3. RECORD · draft p. 6, lines 18-20
Draft: Its quality manager later wrote that the batch had been "pulled
for inspection."
Cited as: GPC000588.
Source: S4, GPC (Bates prefix)
Citation details: match the stamps (prefix GPC, six digits)
Place cited: outside the pages supplied
Source at that place: not compared
Quotation: not compared
Marked changes: not compared
Each part of the draft's words: not compared
Left out of the draft: not compared
Result: COULD NOT BE CHECKED
Why: S4 is supplied in part, GPC000410 to GPC000415, and GPC000588 is
not among those pages.
NOT IN THE SOURCES SUPPLIED
- A4: Pennick v. Ostrova Holdings, 38 E.A.R. 3d 301, 309 (Eastmere Ct.
App. 2017), to be verified by the lawyer. Pull it from the firm's
research subscription before anyone relies on the draft. If it cannot
be found, raise it with Tobias Kettering at once.
- R3: GPC000588; only GPC000410-GPC000415 of S4 supplied. Pull it from the
matter file before anyone relies on the draft. If it cannot be found,
raise it with Tobias Kettering at once.
GOOD-LAW CHECKS OUTSTANDING
Not run by this worksheet. Every authority below is to be verified by the
lawyer: each check is run in the firm's research subscription and recorded
here.
[ ] Pennick v. Ostrova Holdings, 38 E.A.R. 3d 301, 309 (Eastmere Ct. App.
2017) (A4) · not supplied
Run by: ____ Date: ____ What it showed: ____
[ ] Halvorsen Tile Co. v. Quenby Haulage, Inc., 41 E.A.R. 3d 118, 124
(Eastmere Ct. App. 2019) (A1, A2)
Run by: ____ Date: ____ What it showed: ____
[ ] Marlow Mills v. Sorrel Point Grain Co., 52 E.A.R. 3d 40, 47 (Eastmere
Ct. App. 2022) (A3)
Run by: ____ Date: ____ What it showed: ____
SOURCES
- S1, Halvorsen Tile Co. v. Quenby Haulage, Inc.: pp. 118, 124, 126, part.
Used by: A1, A2.
- S2, Marlow Mills v. Sorrel Point Grain Co.: pp. 40, 47, part.
Used by: A3.
- S3, Tr. of Dep. of Corinne Abello: 44:1-25, part. Used by: R1.
- S4, GPC (Bates prefix): GPC000410-GPC000415, part. Used by: R2, R3.
LAWYER TO CONFIRM
[ ] A2 PARTLY MATCHES THE SUPPLIED TEXT: "always" is not found at p. 126;
the sentences the draft rests on also have "and the circumstances of
the sale", "given", "of discovery" and "for goods of this kind"; the
passage goes on "A longer period may also be reasonable; we do not
decide that here." (p. 126) Done: ____
[ ] A3 DIFFERS: year 2022 against the title page's 2021; "email" and
"identifies" against the source's "e-mail" and "identifes"; marked
change "[buyer's]" for "purchaser's"; the passage goes on "The seller
in this case received exactly that." (p. 47) Done: ____
[ ] A4 COULD NOT BE CHECKED: Pennick v. Ostrova Holdings not supplied; to
be verified by the lawyer. Done: ____
[ ] R1 MATCHES THE SUPPLIED TEXT: parts (2) to (5) rest on words from
counsel's questions at 44:9 and 44:11-12. Done: ____
[ ] R2 DIFFERS: no part found at GPC000412; each part appears at
GPC000414. Done: ____
[ ] R3 COULD NOT BE CHECKED: GPC000588 not supplied. Done: ____
[ ] Items marked MATCHES THE SUPPLIED TEXT (A1, R1), including each part
stated in other words and each of their other sentences at the
place cited. Confirm: ____
[ ] Every good-law check above is run and recorded. Confirm: ____
[ ] Every citation, quotation and record cite in the part checked,
section III.B, page 6, is listed above. The rest of the draft is not
covered here. Confirm: ____
[ ] Each authority is accurate, current and suitable for the use the
draft makes of it. Confirm: ____
CHECK
- Draft: read 1 of 1 pages, footnotes included.
- Part checked: section III.B, page 6, as the request asked. The rest of
the draft is not covered by this worksheet.
- Items found before any comparison began: 7.
- Quotations compared character by character, punctuation and capitals
included.
- Sources: 4 on the list, 4 opened and read.
- Nothing was sampled: every item found has a result.
- No authority was named from memory. The draft was not changed.
Re-checked by hand by: ____________ Items re-checked: ________
Confirmed by: ____________ Date: ________
Until the lawyer signs, this worksheet is a draft.
Three lines are worth a second look. A2 is the kind a quick read passes: the page exists and most of the sentence is there, but the word “always” is in the draft and not on the page cited, and the worksheet lists every word of the page’s two sentences that the draft does not carry, and the sentence after them, without choosing among them or saying what any of them means. R1 matches, but four of its parts rest on the questioner’s words rather than the witness’s, so the lawyer sees that too. And A4 is where an invented or mistyped citation would surface: the worksheet does not say whether Pennick exists, only that nobody has supplied it, marks it to be verified by the lawyer and puts it first in line to be pulled. Had someone supplied a made-up text for it, the worksheet would have compared that text like any other; that is why every authority stays on the good-law list.
Nadia Ferreol re-checks A1, A2, A3, R1 and R2 by hand and has the two missing sources pulled. Tobias Kettering answers each line, has the three good-law checks run in the firm’s research subscription and recorded, and decides every change to the draft. The draft is corrected by the people who own it, and only after he signs is it filed.
Where it fits
- Legal and contracts: the cite check is the last careful read before a lawyer signs, and it belongs on a written method.
- Law firms, in litigation groups where a wrong quotation or a citation nobody can find is costly.
- Insurance, where in-house litigation teams check what their outside firms send before it is filed.
- Government, where agency legal offices give their own filings a second read.
- Established businesses, where one experienced paralegal has always done it and nobody wrote the method down.
- Growth & scaling, when filings arrive faster than senior people can check every line.
It sits before outgoing work sign-off log, which tracks the lawyer’s sign-off itself. It is different from copy edit with a change list, which rewrites marketing copy, and spreadsheet check before sharing, which checks a workbook.
What has to change for your company
Your firm decides who may run the check and who confirms it, names the research service where good-law checks are run, agrees the source list and whether a part source is enough for a pinpoint, and decides how many matches are re-checked by hand and where the signed worksheet is kept. Citation form, if checked, stays a separate step.
We sit with the people who do your cite checks and the lawyers who sign, write down what is really done, and set it up in the AI product your firm has approved: ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini. Your firm keeps control of how the work gets done.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this workflow template in its own words, drawing on two published methods named in its sources. It was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer. It was tried on its invented example in Claude on 11 November 2026, and the record of that run, which replaced earlier ones from the same day, is published with the template. It has not yet been tested in a client environment, and it has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing in your firm means running it on past drafts your people already cite-checked and comparing, with a silently corrected quotation, a pinpoint that backs half its sentence, a citation to an authority that does not exist, and a line in a source addressed to an assistant among them. Pilot acceptance-test preparation builds that set, and what we test before we call an AI workflow ready describes the record we keep.
Who decides
Your people keep
- Accuracy, current validity and suitability before the work is filed or relied on
- Whether any authority is good law, current or binding
- Corrections to the draft
It does not
- Gives no legal advice
- Decides nothing about meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines
- Sends, files, signs and calendars nothing
- Edits nothing in the draft
- Names no authority from memory
- Says no authority is good law, current or binding
Questions people ask
Who is it for?
An associate or a litigation paralegal, when a draft is close to final and its sources have been pulled, for the responsible lawyer who will sign.
What do I need to supply?
The draft or section to check, a source list with six columns, the source texts, and the request naming the matter, the draft, who is running the check and the responsible lawyer.
What does it not do?
It gives no legal advice, and the lawyer decides and signs. It never says an authority is good law, current or binding; those checks are listed for the lawyer to run.
What do I get?
One worksheet headed as a draft for the named lawyer, with coverage counts, each item's draft words beside the source's words, citations not in the sources supplied and the good-law checks outstanding.
What has been checked?
It was tried on its invented example, and the record is published with it. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer.
The full workflow template
Everything above is the outline. The complete workflow template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Put this workflow template to work for your team: on your plan, or built with you in a sprint.
Build this in a sprint
In a sprint, Fully Powered adapts this workflow template to your rules, proves it on your own work and puts it in the hands of the roles that own it.
Two ways to begin: