The new myth going around legal tech circles is that hallucination is a solved problem.

It is not.

The latest generation of legal AI is better at sounding right. That is different from being right.

A citation that does not exist looks identical to one that does. The case name is plausible. The year is plausible. The holding is close enough to the real law that a quick read feels like confirmation. That is the actual problem. Not the obvious errors. The ones that pass the first read.

Courts have sanctioned lawyers for filing fabricated citations. The record on that is public. The lawyers involved were not careless people. They trusted a confident output.

Confidence is a style. Accuracy is a standard.

The way Juris handles this is straightforward. Every citation links to a real, verifiable authority. If the source does not exist, the citation does not appear. The system refuses to fabricate, and that refusal is built into the research layer, not bolted on afterward.

Your name is on the filing. The AI's name is not.

So before you trust a research output, one question worth sitting with: do you know where that citation actually lives?

#Juris #LegalTech @KwataTeam