Creating Tables of Authorities: What the Options Look Like

by | Apr 25, 2025

Tables of Authorities (TOAs) show up at the worst possible time. When you’re in crunch mode and need to focus on preparing the most compelling argument for your client, when filing deadlines are staring you in the face, and phone calls and emails are streaming in — that’s also when you need to devote several hours to preparing a complicated, fiddly cover sheet where small errors can make a judge question your attention to detail. 

Since preparing TOAs isn’t exactly pleasant, there are a lot of tools that aim to automate them. We’ve put together this list of TOA tools to help you understand their pros and cons. 

The Free Option: Tables of Authorities inside Microsoft Word

Microsoft Word’s Table of Authorities tool is the default for anyone looking to automate TOAs. You’ll manually identify citations (both initial and subsequent) using the Mark Citation function, which also lets you indicate the category of each citation. Once all citations are marked, you can generate the TOA, setting additional options like whether to include passim and the appearance of the tab leader (the dots that separate the case from the page where it’s found.)

The good

Microsoft Word’s built-in TOA generator is free. It is a basic feature inside Microsoft Word, so there’s no need to install anything. 

The cons

It’s complicated to use correctly. Entire volumes have been written on ways to master the intricacies of Microsoft Word’s Table of Authorities tool. See, for example, this extremely comprehensive guide from the Legal Office Guru.

Work must be redone if the document changes. If you move sections of your document around after you’ve prepared your Table of Authorities, you can’t simply click a button to regenerate it. Instead, you’ll have to go through the entire process of creating the Table again. 

It’s difficult to create more complex forms of TOAs such as Tables of Points and Authority. Some jurisdictions require integrating authorities with topic headings, which is very difficult to achieve with Microsoft Word’s tools, though at least one user has tried!

Litera Litigation Companion

In 2020, Litera acquired Best Authority, an industry-leading TOA generator, and incorporated it into its Litigation Companion software. Litigation Companion goes a step further than Microsoft’s built-in TOA tool, allowing users to validate citations via its integration with Fastcase.

The good

Familiarity. Litera’s platform continues to be one of the leading tools for TOA generation, and many lawyers and legal support staff have been trained to use it effectively. 

The cons

Expensive. Litera has a reputation for pricey software with unpredictable fee increases.

Westlaw Drafting Assistant / Lexis for Microsoft Office

Both Thomson Reuters and LexisNexis offer plugins that integrate their databases into Microsoft Word. That allows them to include features like case law searching and citation validation, alongside traditional TOA features. 

The good

Deeply integrated with legal research platforms. Because they pull from industry-leading databases, these tools allow users to access precedents, view the full text of cases, and correct citations. 

The cons

Expensive. These tools come with a cost on top of the already-expensive subscriptions to their legal databases. 

Walled garden. These tools only work with their respective legal databases, so you’re going to run into issues if you want to refer to content outside of LexisNexis or Westlaw.

TypeLaw

A fully web-based brief formatting service that includes generating TOAs, TypeLaw has received numerous industry awards.

The good

Web-based. TypeLaw’s web-based platform avoids the technical complexity of installing a Microsoft Word plugin, making it easier to get started. 

Transparent, pay-as-you-go pricing. TypeLaw clearly states their prices on their website, and allows users to pay for what they need, without entering into a long-term subscription. 

The cons

Not instantaneous. TypeLaw promises a next-business-day turnaround and offers an expedited one-hour turnaround for an additional fee. These time delays will cut into the drafting time available to attorneys.

Clearbrief

A Microsoft Word add-on that formats legal briefs and provides a number of additional functions, including searching your evidence to find facts that support your claims.

The good

Supports the drafting process. Many of Clearbrief’s functions facilitate the writing process, not just the final, “polishing” phase. 

The cons

Potentially difficult for teams to adopt. Clearbrief’s features work best when legal teams use them collaboratively. But it can be challenging to get large groups of lawyers and support staff to change the way they’re used to doing things. 

CiteRight

A Microsoft Word add-on that lets legal teams gather and organize their cases so that they can view and refer to them while they’re writing. It also generates TOAs and other supporting materials.

The good

A full-featured reference manager. CiteRight is designed as a knowledge tool for legal teams — one that allows teams to reuse their cases and precedents more effectively. 

The cons

Only available in Canada. CiteRight is an exclusively-Canadian tool, which means that US-based litigation teams can’t use it. 

Another option: Jurisage’s Free TOA Builder

If you’re still not satisfied with your TOA workflow, book some time with us. We’re developing a product that automates TOAs from any brief, and we want your input. 

Related posts you may be interested in

How I Handle Tables of Authorities (Without Losing My Mind)

Tables of Authorities often show up when you’re busiest. In this post, I share my practical approach to handling TOAs—simple habits, helpful tools, and lessons learned from balancing deadlines with detail.

Why Benchmarks are Important — Especially in Law

In a recent blog post, we wrote about Cautious...

Using AI as a collaborative, creative tool

A recent study from Harvard Business School on working alongside LLMs has lessons for lawyers and other professionals who want to leverage AI effectively in our own practices.

Putting legal AI through its paces: An argument for cautious curiosity

Let’s talk about some of the ways that LLMs struggle, and what we can learn about how to integrate AI into our own practices by being mindful of those struggles. 

For Legal Teams Evaluating Generative AI, Curiosity is Your Best Asset

The best way to understand and evaluate specialized legal generative AI is to first explore general-purpose AI—not because it works perfectly, but precisely because it doesn’t. Its shortcomings help you identify exactly what domain-specific AI providers are trying to fix.