White & Case is a global law firm with 43 offices across 29 countries and 6 continents, helping clients navigate their most complex deals and disputes across borders and jurisdictions. We are known for our pioneering spirit, our collaborative culture, and our commitment to finding original solutions to difficult problems. Central to how we practise law today is innovation. We have brought together expert legal knowledge with deep expertise in technology, data, and research to build bold, practical solutions that make legal work more efficient and impactful. We invest in AI fluency across our collaborative teams, foster a culture where lawyers and technologists work side by side, and take an analytics and data-driven approach to everything we do – all underpinned by a commitment to responsible AI governance. We believe the next generation of legal professionals will define what the future of law looks like, which is exactly why we are proud to be a platinum sponsor of Hack the Law 2026.
We have rolled out our own proprietary chatbot (Atlas) and entered into a strategic partnership with Legora, also rolling out Legora firmwide. We are also launching an AI Lab to run hypothesis-led AI experiments to validate / invalidate a wider range of business transformational AI research and development avenues.
Alistair Wye, Director (Innovation & AI) ⭐ Grand finale judge ⭐ Challenge contact ⭐ Speaker: ‣
Deborah Afolabi, Analyst, Practice Technology ⭐ First-round judge
Philip Cooney, Senior Manager, Practice Technology ⭐ Challenge contact
.png)
Sushruta Chandraker, Associate (International Arbitration)
.png)
Nivetha Yoganathan, Manager
.png)
Kendra Voogdt, Manager
One of the most widely documented failures of large language models in legal practice is hallucination, the confident generation of fictitious case citations, statutes, and legal authorities. Lawyers, judges, and opposing counsel have already encountered AI-generated briefs citing cases that simply do not exist. In some instances, this has led to court sanctions and significant reputational damage for the lawyers involved.
Legal professionals rely on cited authorities as the backbone of their arguments. A single fabricated or misapplied citation can undermine an entire submission, expose a client to adverse outcomes, and put a lawyer's practising certificate at risk. As AI tools become more deeply embedded in legal workflows, the risk of unchecked hallucinations appearing in high-stakes legal documents, contracts, briefs, court submissions, and regulatory filings, is growing rapidly.
This challenge addresses that problem head-on: building a tool that catches what lawyers, and AI systems themselves, routinely miss.
Your mission is to build an LLM-powered solution that acts as a citation integrity layer for legal documents. Participants will build a tool that: Scans legal text, including contracts, briefs, and memos, to identify all cited cases, statutes, and legal authorities Extracts those citations and verifies whether they are real and correctly applied in context Flags potentially dangerous or fabricated references before they cause harm to a client or practitioner The tool should enable a user to upload or paste a legal document, receive a structured analysis of every citation within it, and understand, at a glance, which references are verified, which are suspect, and which do not exist at all.
You are assisting a partner at Alderton & Marsh LLP, a leading commercial litigation firm, in reviewing a skeleton argument prepared by a junior associate ahead of an urgent case management hearing in the High Court. The underlying dispute involves Crestholm Dynamics plc ("Crestholm"), a UK-based aerospace components manufacturer, and Veltros Industries Inc. ("Veltros"), a US-headquartered procurement conglomerate. Crestholm alleges that Veltros deliberately induced the breach of a long-term exclusive supply agreement between Crestholm and Airspan Aviation Group Ltd ("Airspan"), causing Crestholm to lose a contract worth approximately £47 million in projected revenues.
The skeleton argument, which must be filed by 4:00 PM on the day of the hearing, advances Crestholm's position on three legal grounds: