Caught, not sanctioned
The Supreme Court set aside a ruling after the lower court relied on quotations from prior decisions that were verified and found not to exist.
Irma del Socorro Chadid Urueta v Civil, Family and Labour Division of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Sincelejo (STC17832-2025) · Supreme Court of Justice
cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com ↗
The file →
- Irma del Socorro Chadid Urueta v Civil, Family and Labour Division of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Sincelejo (STC17832-2025) was cited as a foreign example.
- The lower court relied on quotations from prior decisions that did not exist.
- The Supreme Court of Justice set aside the ruling and ordered dissemination of the event to the judiciary.
- The page says there were no apparent consequences for the judges beyond that dissemination order.
- The article could not determine whether the erroneous quotations came from the parties or the judges.
Cathleen Siebrecht filed a brief with AI-hallucinated citations and the court sanctioned her.
In re Cathleen Siebrecht · Cathleen Siebrecht · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida · FL
“I absolve the mother of any intention to mislead the court.”
Cases that don't exist
- Johnson v. City of Detroit, 2024 WL 1234567
peaceforasia.ch ↗
The file →
- In re Cathleen Siebrecht; attorney Cathleen Siebrecht was sanctioned.
- She filed a brief containing AI-hallucinated citations.
- The court imposed a $2,500 monetary fine.
- U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; federal court in Florida.
- Date not given on the page; the page links this as an AI hallucination case.
Caught, not sanctioned
The trial court order in Payne v State contained several AI-generated citations that did not exist or did not support the arguments, and the Georgia Supreme Court vacated it.
Payne v State · Supreme Court of Georgia · GA
“The state justices urged trial judges to examine proposed court orders “with the understanding that artificial intelligence software, with all of its potential risks and benefits, may have been used”.”
thedailystar.net ↗
The file →
- Payne v State involved a trial court order with bogus citations.
- The order contained several legal citations that did not exist or did not support the arguments.
- The Georgia Supreme Court vacated the order; no lawyer sanction amount was stated.
- Supreme Court of Georgia; Georgia state court.
- The page says the draft was prepared by the prosecutor with the aid of AI tools.
Warned
Lexis+ AI
2026-08-07
Counsel filed briefs with fabricated quotations, said she used LexisNexis brief analysis for citation checking, and the court discharged the show-cause order but warned of future sanctions.
Smith v. Polk Co. · U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina · NC
“The Court is deeply troubled by the errors previously identified in the Plaintiff’s filings, and counsel’s letter does little to allay the Court’s concerns.”
edrm.net ↗
The file →
- Smith v. Polk Co. involved plaintiff's counsel and fabricated quotations in filings.
- Counsel said she used LexisNexis brief analysis and denied AI research hallucinations.
- The court discharged the show-cause order but warned similar future filings would be sanctioned.
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, North Carolina.
- Aug. 7, 2026; the court was troubled that counsel could not explain the origin of the fabricated quotations.
Caught, not sanctioned
A junior solicitor submitted false citations generated by an AI tool in Google Scholar, and the work was not checked.
Murphy · Murphy
lawcover.com.au ↗
The file →
- Murphy was the solicitor involved in the false-citation incident.
- An AI tool within Google Scholar produced the false citations.
- The page says the junior solicitor's work was not checked.
- No sanction is stated on the page.
- The article gives no court, date, or citation strings.
Caught, not sanctioned
A legal brief contained fabricated case citations produced by AI, but the page does not say what sanction, if any, followed.
Beatriz Guillen Tores · Beatriz Guillen Tores
aaml.org ↗
The file →
- Beatriz Guillen Tores is named on the page.
- The page says a legal brief contained fabricated case citations produced by AI.
- No sanction is described on the page.
- No court or judge is identified on the page.
- The page gives no date or AI tool name for this incident.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
They submitted a ChatGPT-produced legal brief to courts that cited fictitious cases.
Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca · Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca
mycase.com ↗
The file →
- Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca were the lawyers identified on the page.
- They presented a ChatGPT-produced brief with fictitious cases.
- No sanction is described on the page, so the outcome is listed as none.
- The page does not name a court or jurisdiction for the incident.
- The page says they learned AI’s limitations the hard way and claimed ignorance.
Jan Tomasik and Daniel Mann filed a brief with bogus citations generated by ChatGPT, and Judge Hardy ordered them removed, referred to the Nevada bar, and fined.
Uprise · Jan Tomasik; Daniel Mann; Cozen O’Connor · Washoe County, Nev., District Court · NV
“This is larger than any of us,”
lawnext.com ↗
The file →
- Uprise; Jan Tomasik, Daniel Mann, and Cozen O’Connor
- They filed a brief with bogus legal references generated by ChatGPT.
- Judge Hardy ordered removal, bar referral, and $2,500 fines each ($5,000 total), then suspended them.
- Washoe County, Nevada, District Court in Washoe County, Nev.
- Last May; Hardy said he wanted system improvement and redemption.
Walters filed papers with hallucinated citations; the court sanctioned him for the fake authorities.
Park v. Kim · Mark Walters · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · NY
“The opinion is short and direct.”
Cases that don't exist
- Matter of Bourguignon v. Coordinated Behavioral Health Servs., Inc., 114 A.D.3d 947 (3d Dep’t 2014)
natlawreview.com ↗
The file →
- Park v. Kim; Mark Walters was sanctioned
- He filed briefs containing hallucinated legal citations
- $3,000 monetary fine
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, New York
- The page links the misconduct to ChatGPT-generated fake citations
A California attorney filed ChatGPT-generated fake case quotes and citations, and the state appeals court fined the lawyer $10,000.
California attorney sanctioned for ChatGPT-generated fake case quotes and citations · state appeals court · CA
ai.plainenglish.io ↗
The file →
- A California attorney was sanctioned for ChatGPT-fabricated case quotes.
- The lawyer submitted 21 of 23 quotes that ChatGPT had completely fabricated.
- The court fined the lawyer $10,000.
- The sanction came from a state appeals court in California.
- The page names ChatGPT as the source of the fake citations.
Fined
$5K
The court sanctioned attorneys $2,500 each and imposed a six-month suspension for AI-fabricated citations after repeated denials of AI use.
Ninth Circuit's Precedential AI-Hallucination Sanctions · Ninth Circuit
github.com ↗
The file →
- Ninth Circuit's Precedential AI-Hallucination Sanctions
- Attorneys used AI-fabricated citations and one denied AI use three times before admitting it.
- The court imposed $2,500 each plus a six-month suspension, totaling $5,000.
- The page identifies the court as the Ninth Circuit.
- The order is described as a published appellate order.
Caught, not sanctioned
A federal judge cancelled a trial and removed all four attorneys after both sides filed briefs citing AI-fabricated case law.
Mississippi Trial Cancelled Over Dual-Counsel AI Hallucinations · MS
github.com ↗
The file →
- Mississippi Trial Cancelled Over Dual-Counsel AI Hallucinations
- Both plaintiff and defense counsel filed briefs citing AI-fabricated case law.
- The judge cancelled the trial and removed all four attorneys.
- The page identifies this as a federal case in Mississippi.
- The page says it was the first simultaneous sanction of opposing counsel for the same AI misuse.
Warned
Judge Anna Manasco ordered Butler Snow attorneys to share her ruling with clients, other judges, and lawyers at the firm nationwide after fake legal authority was filed.
Butler Snow attorneys · Butler Snow · federal court in Alabama · AL
findlaw.com ↗
The file →
- Butler Snow attorneys were sanctioned for making up legal authority in a filing.
- The page says they submitted AI-generated fictions to a federal judge.
- Judge Anna Manasco ordered firmwide sharing of the ruling instead of only small fines.
- Federal court in Alabama; Judge Anna Manasco.
- The judge said making up legal authority calls for more serious consequences than usual warnings or small fines.
Caught, not sanctioned
Judge P. Kevin Castel ordered the firm's attorneys to write apology letters to judges falsely named as authors of fake AI-generated cases.
Levidow, Levidow & Oberman attorneys · Levidow, Levidow & Oberman · federal court in New York · NY
findlaw.com ↗
The file →
- Attorneys of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman were ordered to respond to AI-fabricated citations.
- The filing involved fake cases generated by AI that falsely named judges as authors.
- The court ordered apology letters, not a monetary sanction.
- Federal court in New York; Judge P. Kevin Castel.
- The order required letters to each judge falsely identified as the author of a fake case.
Fined
Lawrence Chang filed a motion with at least six bogus case citations and quotes; Judge Maya Guerra Gamble dismissed the motion and said monetary sanctions were likely.
Lawrence Chang matter · Lawrence Chang · 459th District Court in Travis County · TX
““I’m pinning my sanctions on your signature as a sworn officer of the court,” Gamble of the 459th district court in Travis County said at a hearing.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Lawrence Chang was the lawyer tied to the filing.
- He cited at least six cases whose supporting statements said something different.
- Judge Maya Guerra Gamble dismissed the motion and hinted at monetary sanctions.
- The court was the 459th District Court in Travis County, Texas.
- The article says Chang blamed bad artificial intelligence.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
A lawyer filed a brief with fabricated case law invented by ChatGPT, and the court sanctioned him after the error was uncovered.
ChatGPT Legal Case Incident
aihealthcarecompliance.com ↗
The file →
- The page names "The ChatGPT Legal Case Incident" but gives no caption or lawyer name.
- A lawyer submitted legal filings containing fabricated case law invented by ChatGPT.
- The court sanctioned him after the error was uncovered.
- No court, judge, date, or sanction amount is given on the page.
- The page says Stanford HAI provides detailed analysis of the case.
Fined
Attorneys were fined after filings in the FIFA case contained inaccurate or nonexistent citations that suggested AI misuse.
FIFA case
“but the sheer number of inaccurate or nonexistent citations suggests otherwise.”
reuters.com ↗
The file →
- FIFA case; attorneys unnamed on the page
- Filings contained inaccurate or nonexistent citations
- Court imposed a fine, but the amount is not stated
- Court and location are not stated on the page
- Attorneys denied using AI; judge said the citations suggested otherwise
Caught, not sanctioned
Mann accidentally submitted an early draft brief containing AI-generated references to nonexistent cases and false citations of precedent, and the Reno judge handed down a creative decision.
Mann · Mann · Reno judge · NV
rgj.com ↗
The file →
- Mann was the lawyer named on the page.
- He accidentally submitted an early draft brief with AI-generated nonexistent cases and false precedent citations.
- The page does not state a monetary sanction or other punishment; it only says the judge handed down a decision.
- The court is identified only as a Reno judge in Nevada.
- No date, AI tool, or quoted judicial language is given on the page.
Caught, not sanctioned
A filing in Provo's matter allegedly contained fraudulent AI-generated citations, and the page says he was sanctioned or narrowly avoided sanction in the Supreme Court context.
Timothy Robert Provo · Timothy Robert Provo · U.S. Supreme Court
supremecourt.gov ↗
The file →
- Timothy Robert Provo was the named lawyer/matter on the page.
- The page says the case exposed fraudulent AI-generated citations in filings.
- The sanction outcome is not specifically stated on the page excerpt.
- The court named is the U.S. Supreme Court.
- No AI tool, date, or quoted judge language is given in the excerpt.
Schwartz filed a ChatGPT-written brief that cited nonexistent cases, and the court sanctioned him and fined him $5,000.
Steven A. Schwartz · Steven A. Schwartz · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
““I did not comprehend that ChatGPT could fabricate cases,” Schwartz later told the judge.”
Cases that don't exist
- Martinez v. Delta
- Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines
- Varghese v. China Southern Airlines
precedent.com ↗
The file →
- Steven A. Schwartz filed a ChatGPT-written brief in an airline suit.
- The brief cited Martinez v. Delta, Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines, and Varghese v. China Southern Airlines.
- He was sanctioned and fined $5,000.
- The article places the matter in court in the Southern District of New York.
- The cited cases did not exist, and Schwartz said he did not comprehend ChatGPT could fabricate cases.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
A lawyer submitted filings with AI-generated case citations; the BC Supreme Court declined special costs but held her personally liable for other costs.
Zhang v. Chen · counsel in Zhang v. Chen · British Columbia court · BC
“Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement … Unchecked, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice.”
delcantochambers.com ↗
The file →
- Zhang v. Chen involved a lawyer who submitted AI-generated case citations.
- The filings contained hallucinated case law.
- The BC Supreme Court declined special costs but held her personally liable for other costs.
- The court was in British Columbia, Canada.
- The article says the lawyer corrected errors, apologized, and did not intend to deceive.
A legal brief cited six fictitious ChatGPT-generated cases, and the court discovered the fabrication after opposing counsel could not find them.
New York attorneys
agiloft.com ↗
The file →
- New York attorneys were the lawyers involved.
- They filed a brief with six fictitious cases generated by ChatGPT.
- No sanction is described on this page.
- The page gives no court or judge name.
- It says the court discovered the fabrication when opposing counsel could not locate the cases.
A lawyer submitted a brief citing nonexistent cases hallucinated by ChatGPT, and the court sanctioned the lawyer $5,000.
C O’Keefe · C O’Keefe
fordhamlawreview.org ↗
The file →
- C O’Keefe was sanctioned.
- A brief cited nonexistent cases hallucinated by ChatGPT.
- The court imposed a $5,000 sanction.
- The page gives no court or judge name.
- The article cites this as a 2023 sanction.
An immigration lawyer used ChatGPT to draft legal documents and was found to have cited fake cases, risking a rebuke from the barristers' watchdog.
The immigration lawyer · barristers' watchdog
telegraph.co.uk ↗
The file →
- An immigration lawyer was caught citing fake cases.
- He used ChatGPT to draft legal documents.
- He risked a rebuke from the barristers' watchdog.
- The article names no court, judge, or case caption.
- The tool identified was ChatGPT.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT-4o
A Stanford professor relied on ChatGPT-4o to draft his declaration, which cited two nonexistent sources and misattributed an author's name, and the court struck it.
Minnesota state challenge · MN
legalnursepdx.com ↗
The file →
- A Stanford professor on the state's side in the Minnesota challenge was involved.
- He used ChatGPT-4o to help draft a declaration with two nonexistent sources and a misattributed name.
- The court struck the declaration after plaintiffs sought exclusion.
- Minnesota state court in a challenge to the state deepfakes law.
- The page says the state sought a do-over citing excusable neglect.
Caught, not sanctioned
Grammarly
An attorney withdrew after filing an opposition brief alleged to contain non-existent caselaw, fake quotations, and incorrect legal assertions.
Smith v. Athena Construction Group, Inc.
hlc.com ↗
The file →
- Smith v. Athena Construction Group, Inc.; an attorney representing a relator
- Opposition brief allegedly contained non-existent caselaw, fake quotations, and incorrect legal assertions
- The attorney withdrew; no court sanction is stated on the page
- Federal FCA matter; court not named on the page
- Page says the attorney used Grammarly and Lexis+
Two law firms faced sanctions after submitting ChatGPT-generated briefs that contained nine fabricated citations out of 27 total authorities.
ChatGPT-generated briefs
proplaintiff.ai ↗
The file →
- Two law firms were sanctioned for ChatGPT-generated briefs.
- Their filings contained nine fabricated citations out of 27 authorities.
- The page says the sanction was a $10,000 wake-up call.
- The court and judge are not named on the page.
- The article gives the fabrication count but no citation strings.
Fined
A District of Arizona court sanctioned plaintiff’s counsel after her opening brief contained fabricated, misleading, or unsupported citations likely caused by AI hallucinations.
Plaintiff’s opening brief sanction order (District of Arizona) · District of Arizona · AZ
“… well over the majority of the citations provided to this court in plaintiff’s opening brief were fabricated, misleading or unsupported.”
kahanafeld.com ↗
The file →
- District of Arizona order involving plaintiff’s counsel
- Opening brief contained fabricated, misleading, or unsupported citations
- Court imposed severe sanctions, including apology letters and pro hac vice revocation
- Federal court in Arizona
- September 10, 2025 article; court said most citations were fabricated or unsupported
Fined
$2K
Judge Dena M. Coggins sanctioned attorney Sepideh Ardestani for a filing with numerous nonexistent and erroneous AI-generated citations.
Sepideh Ardestani · Sepideh Ardestani · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California · CA
“"submission of a motion with numerous nonexistent and erroneous citations, coupled with her repeated failure to be forthcoming with the court, constitutes conduct that is 'akin to contempt of court,'"”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Sepideh Ardestani was sanctioned in the Eastern District of California.
- She allegedly used artificial intelligence to generate more than a dozen fictitious case citations in a filing.
- The court imposed a $1,500 sanction.
- The case was in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
- Judge Dena M. Coggins issued the order; the article says it was docketed Tuesday.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatOn
A brief cited five fake cases generated by ChatOn, and the court addressed the AI-fabricated citations.
ChatOn-cited brief matter
hvbba.org ↗
The file →
- A brief cited five fake cases generated by ChatOn.
- The attorney who drafted the brief did not check the citations.
- The page does not state a sanction amount or type.
- The court is not identified on the page.
- The article is truncated and gives no case caption or named lawyer.
Referred to the bar
$10K
A California state appellate panel sanctioned a Pacific Palisades lawyer and reported him to the bar for AI-generated fake quotes in his opening and reply briefs.
In re Pacific Palisades lawyer · Pacific Palisades lawyer · California Second District Court of Appeal · CA
“In an apparent first, a California state appellate panel has sanctioned a Pacific Palisades lawyer and reported him to the bar for submitting AI-generated fabrications in his opening and reply briefs.”
law.com ↗
The file →
- Pacific Palisades lawyer sanctioned in the Second District Court of Appeal.
- He submitted AI-generated fabrications in his opening and reply briefs.
- The court imposed a $10,000 sanction and reported him to the bar.
- California Second District Court of Appeal, California.
- Article dated Sept. 15, 2025; the page says this was an apparent first.
Caught, not sanctioned
Abid Hussain admitted relying on client research and public GenAI tools to produce citations.
Abid Hussain · Abid Hussain
whitecase.com ↗
The file →
- Abid Hussain was the claimant's solicitor.
- He admitted using public GenAI tools to produce citations.
- The page does not describe any sanction or court order.
- No court, jurisdiction, or date is given on the page.
- The page does not name a specific AI product.
Caught, not sanctioned
The page says a Queensland case involved AI-fabricated citations in materials filed on the applicant's behalf, but it is unclear whether the applicant was represented.
QWYN and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation and business) · Administrative Review Tribunal
qlsproctor.com.au ↗
The file →
- QWYN and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation and business); an unclear Queensland matter.
- Materials filed on the applicant's behalf reportedly contained AI-fabricated citations.
- The page does not state a sanction order for this matter.
- Administrative Review Tribunal; Queensland.
- The article says it is not clear whether the applicant was represented.
Referred to the bar
The page says a Western Australian case involved referral to a disciplinary regulator and an immediate personal costs order after AI-fabricated citations were found.
JNE24 v Minister for Immigration · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
qlsproctor.com.au ↗
The file →
- JNE24 v Minister for Immigration; an unnamed lawyer or firm in Western Australia.
- The page says the case involved AI-fabricated citations and disciplinary consequences.
- It mentions a referral to a disciplinary regulator plus an immediate personal costs order.
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia; Western Australia.
- The article identifies it only as a similar Western Australian case, without naming the practitioner.
Mr Dayal filed a list and summary of authorities containing entirely fabricated AI-generated case citations, and the regulator imposed practice restrictions.
Dayal · Mr Dayal · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
qlsproctor.com.au ↗
The file →
- Dayal; Mr Dayal, a Victorian solicitor,
- He submitted a list and summary of authorities with entirely fabricated case citations generated by AI-based legal software.
- The Victorian Legal Services Board imposed comprehensive practice restrictions and supervised practice requirements.
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia; Victoria.
- The page says this was the first Australian case in which referral to a regulator had been concluded.
Referred to the bar
Lawyers used AI and other sources to file witness statements with fictitious authorities, and the High Court accepted their self-referral without contempt.
Al-Haroun · High Court in England and Wales
“freely available generative artificial intelligence tools, trained on a large language model such as ChatGPT are not capable of conducting reliable legal research”
privacylawbarrister.com ↗
The file →
- Al-Haroun; the lawyers used AI tools in court papers.
- Some cited authorities were fictitious, including one attributed to the judge.
- The High Court supported their self-referral to the regulator, with no contempt finding.
- High Court in England and Wales.
- The page says they used publicly available AI tools, legal search engines and online sources.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
Two lawyers filed a ChatGPT-generated brief with fabricated court opinions and quotes, and a judge sanctioned them.
Two lawyers sanctioned in 2023
miamidadebar.org ↗
The file →
- Two lawyers were sanctioned in 2023.
- They filed a brief generated by ChatGPT with fabricated court opinions and quotes.
- The page says a judge sanctioned them, but gives no amount.
- No court, judge, or location is identified on the page.
- The page cites ChatGPT and warns it can ‘hallucinate’ and be wholly inaccurate.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
A lawyer submitted a factum containing fictitious AI-generated case citations, and the court addressed the filing.
Ko v. Li · Ontario Superior Court of Justice · ON
“Ms. Lee forthrightly acknowledges the fact that her factum was created using ChatGPT and contains fake cases.”
canadianlawyermag.com ↗
The file →
- Ko v. Li is named as a Canadian AI-citation incident.
- A lawyer submitted a factum with fictitious AI-generated case citations.
- The page does not state a sanction amount or type for this incident.
- The court was in Ontario, Canada.
- The page says the filings showed the risk of generative AI hallucinations.
Filing dismissed
Dorthy Nichols, representing herself in an appeal, filed baseless legal citations and the court dismissed her appeal.
Dorthy Nichols · Dorthy Nichols · California court · CA
“Nichols “offered no meaningful explanation” and had filed “made-up” legal citations.”
ajc.com ↗
The file →
- Dorthy Nichols was the self-represented litigant in the case.
- She filed baseless and made-up legal citations.
- The court dismissed her appeal.
- A California court handled the matter.
- The article quotes the court saying she offered no meaningful explanation.
Fined
$2K
Yolanda Smith-Parker filed a divorce order with made-up citations, and the court criticized her and imposed a $2,500 fine.
Yolanda Smith-Parker · Yolanda Smith-Parker · DeKalb County Superior Court · GA
“The situation was “troubling,” said Judge Ana Keil Lynch.”
ajc.com ↗
The file →
- Yolanda Smith-Parker was sanctioned in a divorce case.
- She prepared an order with fabricated legal citations.
- The court fined her $2,500.
- DeKalb County Superior Court, Georgia.
- Judge Ana Keil Lynch called the situation “troubling.”
Warned
An Atlanta lawyer prepared a divorce order containing bogus citations, and the Georgia Court of Appeals admonished him after a DeKalb County judge signed it.
Atlanta lawyer in a divorce matter · Atlanta lawyer · DeKalb County Superior Court · GA
ajc.com ↗
The file →
- An Atlanta lawyer was admonished over a divorce order.
- The order contained two bogus case citations.
- The Georgia Court of Appeals admonished him after a DeKalb County judge signed it.
- DeKalb County Superior Court, Georgia.
- The article gives no sanction amount and no AI tool name.
Fined
$6K
Brian G. Brady filed a document with bogus legal citations in a contract-breach case, and Judge Louis Sands fined him $6,500 and ordered AI-education costs.
Brian G. Brady · Brian G. Brady · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia · GA
ajc.com ↗
The file →
- Brian G. Brady was sanctioned in a federal Georgia case.
- He admitted a filing had bogus legal citations generated with AI.
- Judge Louis Sands imposed a $6,500 fine and AI-education costs.
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Georgia.
- The article says Brady apologized and blamed an error by his staff.
Caught, not sanctioned
A condo owner filed an AI-generated submission with ghost citations and misquoted laws, and the Tribunal identified the hallucinations.
Janssen v. TSCC 1851 · Condominium Authority Tribunal
condoadviser.ca ↗
The file →
- Janssen v. TSCC 1851 involved a condo owner before the Condominium Authority Tribunal.
- He used an AI-generated submission with invented cases and misquoted laws.
- The Tribunal identified the hallucinations; the post does not report a sanction.
- The court was the Condominium Authority Tribunal in Ontario.
- Published October 28, 2025; the article says the Tribunal had already warned the dispute likely fell outside its jurisdiction.
Caught, not sanctioned
A lawyer for MyPillow filed a brief with nearly 30 defective citations, and a federal judge in Colorado ruled on the filing.
MyPillow Inc. defamation case · a lawyer for MyPillow Inc · federal court in Colorado · CO
broadbandbreakfast.com ↗
The file →
- MyPillow Inc.'s defamation case was singled out in the AP story.
- A lawyer for MyPillow filed a brief containing nearly 30 defective citations.
- The article says a federal judge in Colorado ruled on the filing.
- The page reports the issue as AI-generated/hallucinated citations.
- No sanction amount or named AI tool is given on the page.
A barrister misled the Tribunal by citing a fictitious Court of Appeal judgment generated by ChatGPT.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
ein.org.uk ↗
The file →
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) involved a barrister
- The barrister cited a fictitious Court of Appeal judgment generated by ChatGPT
- The Tribunal issued guidance and a stern warning
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), England and Wales
- Date not given; the page says this happened after ChatGPT-generated citations misled the Tribunal
Caught, not sanctioned
Justice J.F. Kenkel found erroneous case citations in defence counsel’s submissions and ordered new submissions without GenAI.
R v Chand · Ontario Court of Justice
“there would be a “discussion” at the end of the trial about how the initial submissions were prepared”
claytonrice.com ↗
The file →
- R v Chand involved erroneous case citations in defence submissions.
- The court ordered new submissions without using GenAI.
- No monetary sanction was imposed.
- Ontario Court of Justice.
- The page gives no exact date; Justice J.F. Kenkel said there would be a discussion at trial's end.
Warned
A plaintiff's lawyer filed AI-generated case references in a commercial dispute hearing, and the court issued a formal warning in its written judgment.
Beijing Tongzhou District People's Court commercial dispute hearing · Beijing Tongzhou District People's Court
aa.com.tr ↗
The file →
- Beijing Tongzhou District People's Court commercial dispute hearing involving a plaintiff's lawyer.
- The lawyer submitted two AI-generated case references that looked legitimate but were not real cases.
- The court dismissed the AI-generated references and issued a formal warning.
- Beijing Tongzhou District People's Court in Beijing, China.
- Judge Zheng Jizhe discovered the citations; the lawyer said he had copied the AI model's generated outcomes into his filing.
Three attorneys filed a motion with fabricated AI citations; a federal judge publicly reprimanded and disqualified them and referred them to the State Bar.
Alabama supervising attorney and others · federal judge · AL
“This was “an extreme dereliction of professional responsibility” and “lazy, convenient fictions” substituting for truth.”
Cases that don't exist
- United States v. Baker
- Kelley v. City of Birmingham
- Greer v. Warden
vlex.com ↗
The file →
- Alabama supervising attorney was one of three lawyers sanctioned over a motion with fake citations.
- ChatGPT produced citations that were copied into the motion without verification.
- The court publicly reprimanded and disqualified all three attorneys and referred them to the State Bar.
- Federal court in Alabama.
- Page says the judge called the conduct “recklessness in the extreme” and required review of 52 federal cases.
Fined
$1K
A public defender filed an appellate brief with AI-generated citations, and the Appellate Court of Illinois ordered disgorgement of his fee plus $1,000 in sanctions and a referral.
Illinois public defender · Appellate Court of Illinois · IL
“It was a “perfect storm” of “temptation of AI out there at a time when [he] was busy and trying to meet deadlines.””
vlex.com ↗
The file →
- Illinois public defender was sanctioned after filing an AI-written appellate brief.
- Eight cited cases were involved, including five nonexistent ones and three misidentified ones.
- The court ordered disgorgement of a $6,925.62 fee plus $1,000 in sanctions.
- Appellate Court of Illinois, Illinois.
- Page quotes the lawyer calling it a “perfect storm” and says the court referred him to the disciplinary commission.
An attorney filed AI-enhanced appellate briefs with fabricated citations and quotations; the California Court of Appeal sanctioned him $10,000 and referred him to the State Bar.
[Los Angeles attorney; case caption not named on page] · attorney in Los Angeles · California Court of Appeal · CA
Cases that don't exist
- Schimmel v. Levin
- Peake v. Underwood
vlex.com ↗
The file →
- Los Angeles attorney was sanctioned after filing AI-enhanced appellate briefs.
- ChatGPT generated fabricated citations and quotations that were filed without reading.
- The court imposed a $10,000 sanction and referred him to the State Bar.
- California Court of Appeal, California.
- Page says the sanction was the highest fine ever issued by a California state court for AI misuse.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
Michael Long filed RTKL appeals and court papers with fabricated case citations, and the Borough challenged the filings in county court.
Michael Long · Michael Long · Northampton County Court of Common Pleas · PA
Cases that don't exist
- Grove v. OOR
- Pennsylvania State Education v. Commonwealth
- IN RE S.S., 651 A.2d 174
+5 more
bathborough.org ↗
The file →
- Michael Long was the requestor in the Bath Borough RTKL dispute.
- He submitted legal filings and appeals containing fictitious or irrelevant citations.
- The page reports no sanction order against him, only that the Borough challenged his filings.
- The matter was in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania.
- The article says Long used AI and even bragged about using ChatGPT.
Referred to the bar
Nevada attorneys were caught citing 14 fabricated cases and were referred to the state bar and ordered to write explanatory letters to law school deans.
In re Nevada attorneys · NV
jenkinslaw.org ↗
The file →
- Attorneys in Nevada were referred to the state bar after using fabricated citations.
- The page says they were also directed to write explanatory letters to their law school deans.
- The sanction type is referral; no dollar amount is stated.
- The court is not named on the page; Nevada is the only location given.
- The page mentions 14 fabricated cases but names no AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
Wyoming attorneys were caught including nine AI-hallucinated cases in their argument.
In re Wyoming attorneys · WY
jenkinslaw.org ↗
The file →
- Attorneys in Wyoming were caught with nine AI-hallucinated cases in an argument.
- The page says the fabricated cases were included in their argument.
- No sanction or amount is stated on the page.
- The court is not named on the page; Wyoming is the only location given.
- The page gives no AI tool name or judge quote.
Reprimanded
An Iowa attorney filed a motion citing an AI-hallucinated case and was suspended.
In re Iowa attorney · IA
jenkinslaw.org ↗
The file →
- An Iowa attorney was suspended after filing a motion with a hallucinated case citation.
- The page says the motion included an AI-hallucinated case.
- The sanction was suspension; no amount is given.
- The court is not named on the page; Iowa is the only location given.
- The page does not name the AI tool or quote the judge.
Fined
Heller submitted papers with false citations, and the court sanctioned the lawyer over the AI misuse.
Matter of Heller · Heller · New York Supreme Court · NY
nysba.org ↗
The file →
- Matter of Heller is the named matter on the page.
- The filing contained false legal citations generated by AI.
- The court imposed sanctions, though the amount is not stated on the page.
- New York Supreme Court, New York.
- The article gives the attorney name but does not identify the AI tool.
Fined
$10K
A Los Angeles plaintiff's attorney filed an opening brief riddled with AI-generated fake citations, and the California Second District Court of Appeal fined him $10,000.
Amir Mostafav matter · Amir Mostafav · California Second District Court of Appeal · CA
legalnewsline.com ↗
The file →
- Amir Mostafav, a Los Angeles plaintiff's attorney, was sanctioned.
- He submitted an opening brief riddled with AI-generated fake citations.
- The court imposed a $10,000 fine.
- The sanction came from the California Second District Court of Appeal in California.
- The page gives no AI tool name and no quoted judge language.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
A law school intern used ChatGPT for legal research, and an early-draft motion-to-dismiss opinion with fake quotes and misstated outcomes was withdrawn.
Julien Xavier Neals opinion · Julien Xavier Neals · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
“In doing so, the intern acted without authorization, without disclosure, and contrary to not only chambers policy but also the relevant law school policy.”
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
- Julien Xavier Neals, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
- A law school intern used ChatGPT and the opinion misstated case outcomes and used fake quotes.
- The opinion was withdrawn; no sanction is stated on the page.
- District of New Jersey; federal court.
- Neals said the intern acted without authorization, without disclosure, and contrary to chambers and law school policy.
Owoc filed a court motion with 11 AI-hallucinated citations and was sanctioned by the court.
Jack Owoc matter · Jack Owoc · California court · CA
futurism.com ↗
The file →
- Jack Owoc was sanctioned in a California case.
- He filed a motion with 11 AI-hallucinated citations to nonexistent cases.
- The court ordered 10 hours of community service and future AI disclosure.
- California court; state jurisdiction; location not further specified on the page.
- The article says he admitted using generative AI and the sanction was for hallucinated citations.
Fined
A self-represented defendant filed submissions with AI-generated non-existent cases, and the court allowed correction but ordered costs.
Halton (Regional Municipality) v. Rewa et al. · Mr. Rewa · Ontario Superior Court
“one also does not need to be a lawyer to read through a case to verify if it stands for the suggested proposition.”
torkin.com ↗
The file →
- Halton (Regional Municipality) v. Rewa et al. involved Mr. Rewa, a self-represented defendant.
- He relied on AI-generated, non-existent cases in his court submissions.
- The court allowed him to correct his motion but ordered costs.
- The court was the Ontario Superior Court in Ontario.
- The article says the judge warned AI-hallucinated case law would not be tolerated and quoted the court on verifying authorities.
An immigration barrister cited entirely fictitious or irrelevant cases in appeal grounds and the Upper Tribunal judge said he had likely used generative AI and tried to hide it.
Chowdhury Rahman · Chowdhury Rahman · Upper Tribunal
“The most obvious explanation is … that the grounds of appeal were drafted in whole or in part by generative artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT.”
theguardian.com ↗
The file →
- Chowdhury Rahman was the immigration barrister in the Upper Tribunal case.
- He cited cases that were described as entirely fictitious or wholly irrelevant.
- The judge said Rahman likely used generative AI and considered reporting him to the Bar Standards Board.
- Court: Upper Tribunal in the UK; the ruling was published on Tuesday.
- Judge Mark Blundell ruled in September and said the submissions wasted the tribunal’s time.
Two outside attorneys cited cases that ChatGPT hallucinated in an unrelated lawsuit and were publicly reprimanded and referred to licensing authorities.
Baltimore Central Booking & Intake Center conditions case · Matthew Reeves and William Lunsford · U.S. District Court · MD
thebanner.com ↗
The file →
- Matthew Reeves and William Lunsford were the attorneys.
- They cited cases that ChatGPT hallucinated in an unrelated lawsuit.
- Judge Anna M. Manasco publicly reprimanded them and referred them to bar authorities.
- U.S. District Court in Alabama.
- The article says this happened this year; the page names ChatGPT and the referral.
Richard Bednar filed a brief with fake ChatGPT-generated citations, and the Utah Court of Appeals sanctioned him.
Richard Bednar · Richard Bednar · Utah Court of Appeals · UT
“"here is this case and it supports our position" and the case doesn’t exist.”
Cases that don't exist
- Royer v. Nelson
- Wadsworth v. Walmart
- United States v. Hayes
cybernews.com ↗
The file →
- Richard Bednar was sanctioned in the Utah Court of Appeals matter.
- He submitted a brief with fake citations generated by ChatGPT.
- He was ordered to pay fees, refund client fees, and donate $1,000.
- Utah Court of Appeals in Utah.
- The brief included the non-existent case Royer v. Nelson.
A California attorney was fined for filing a state court appeal with fake quotations generated by ChatGPT.
California attorney sanctioned for fake quotations generated by ChatGPT · CA
cybernews.com ↗
The file →
- A California attorney was sanctioned for an AI-generated filing.
- The attorney used fake quotations generated by ChatGPT in a state court appeal.
- The court imposed a $10,000 fine.
- The matter was in California state court.
- The page says the fine was issued in September and calls it historic.
Caught, not sanctioned
Attorney Michael Fourte filed a brief using AI citations and quotes, and the court criticized him for relying on unvetted AI.
Michael Fourte · Michael Fourte · New York Supreme Court · NY
“Counsel relied upon unvetted AI – in his telling, via inadequately supervised colleagues – to defend his use of unvetted AI”
cybernews.com ↗
The file →
- Michael Fourte defended himself in New York Supreme Court.
- He submitted a brief using AI citations and quotes written with a chatbot.
- The page does not report a formal sanction or amount for this incident.
- The court was the New York Supreme Court in New York.
- Judge Joel Coehn wrote the quoted criticism about unvetted AI.
Caught, not sanctioned
Gordon Rees and Cassie Preston submitted a bankruptcy filing with fabricated citations and faced possible sanctions.
Gordon Rees LLP / Cassie Preston matter · Gordon Rees; Cassie Preston · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Montgomery, Alabama · AL
“pervasive inaccurate, misleading, and fabricated citations, quotations, and representations of legal authority”
abovethelaw.com ↗
The file →
- Gordon Rees and Cassie Preston were the named parties facing potential sanctions.
- They submitted a bankruptcy filing with inaccurate, misleading, and fabricated citations.
- The court issued an order to show cause; no sanction amount is stated on the page.
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Montgomery, Alabama; Judge Christopher Hawkins.
- In August, Hawkins asked why they should not be sanctioned after the AI-tainted filing.
A U.S. lawyer used ChatGPT to draft filings and cited fake cases; a federal judge responded with a standing order on AI use.
ChatGPT references nonexistent legal cases · A U.S. lawyer · federal judge
evidentlyai.com ↗
The file →
- A U.S. lawyer in the ChatGPT case
- He used ChatGPT and ended up citing entirely fake legal cases
- The judge issued a standing order, not a monetary penalty
- Federal court; the page gives no judge name or location
- The page says the lawyer did not realize ChatGPT was a generative language tool
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
Michael Cohen gave his lawyer AI-generated citations, and fake cases ended up in a real court filing.
Michael Cohen matter · Michael Cohen · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“the attorneys’ actions were “embarrassing and certainly negligent.””
medium.com ↗
The file →
- Michael Cohen and his lawyer were involved.
- AI-generated citations were given to the lawyer and filed in court.
- The page says they got sanctioned, but gives no order details.
- No court, judge, or location is named on the page.
- ChatGPT is identified as the tool used.
Michael Cohen submitted AI-generated fake citations from Google Bard in court filings.
Michael Cohen case · Michael Cohen
jurvantis.ai ↗
The file →
- Michael Cohen case; Michael Cohen
- He submitted AI-generated fake citations from Google Bard
- The page does not state a sanction order or amount
- The page gives no specific court or location
- The page says this occurred by late 2023 and identifies Google Bard as the source
Caught, not sanctioned
A San Diego judge denied sanctions but condemned Tyson & Mendes for miscited and non-existent authority, factual misstatements, and unverified AI-sourced assertions.
Tyson & Mendes · Tyson & Mendes · San Diego court · CA
dailyjournal.com ↗
The file →
- Tyson & Mendes was the firm criticized by the San Diego judge.
- The filing contained miscited and non-existent authority and AI-sourced assertions.
- The court denied sanctions despite condemning the conduct.
- The court was in San Diego, California.
- The article does not name an AI tool or quote the judge in the excerpt provided.
Filing dismissed
A self-represented appellant used generative AI to draft material with several fabricated case citations, and the court dismissed the appeal.
Helmod & Mariya (No 2) · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction
shorestonelegal.com.au ↗
The file →
- Helmod & Mariya (No 2) involved a self-represented appellant husband.
- He used generative AI to prepare written material and filed several cases as authorities.
- The court dismissed the appeal; no monetary sanction is stated.
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction.
- 2025; the court said the cases either could not be located or were not authority for the propositions.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
Rose Lawyers drafted a will with AI-assisted legal citations; the page does not say any sanctions were imposed.
Re Walker [2025] VSC 714 · Rose Lawyers · Victorian Supreme Court
heirsandsuccesses.com ↗
The file →
- Re Walker [2025] VSC 714 involved Rose Lawyers drafting the will.
- The page discusses AI-assisted preparation and verification risks.
- No sanction or penalty is described on the page.
- Victorian Supreme Court, Victoria.
- May 2024 guidelines and a discussion of ChatGPT/Google Gemini appear in the article.
Caught, not sanctioned
The court verified citations in a brief, found false or inaccurate case law, and ordered a procedural measure after the attorney admitted using AI.
Giacomino, César Adrián et al. v. Monserrat, Facundo Damián et al. · Court of Appeals in Civil, Commercial, Family, and Mining Matters of General Roca
iapp.org ↗
The file →
- Giacomino, César Adrián et al. v. Monserrat, Facundo Damián et al.; attorney unnamed
- A brief cited false or inaccurate case law, likely generated by AI
- The court ordered a procedural measure; no sanction amount stated
- Court of Appeals in Civil, Commercial, Family, and Mining Matters of General Roca
- No date given; attorney expressly admitted using an AI tool
Caught, not sanctioned
A worker filed submissions with hallucinated legal citations, and the Deputy Registrar said the submission appeared to have been created partly with AI.
A2501051, 2025 CanLII 97422 · British Columbia Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal
“The cases he has cited either do not exist, or do not have anything to do with what he has cited them for.”
oba.org ↗
The file →
- BC WCAT A2501051, 2025 CanLII 97422 involved a worker's submissions.
- The submission cited cases that did not exist or were cited for the wrong proposition.
- No sanction amount or formal sanction is stated; the order addressed the submission's defects.
- The decision came from the British Columbia Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal.
- The Deputy Registrar said the submission appeared partly created with AI, and the page says LLMs can 'hallucinate' legal cases.
Warned
A lawyer cited a non-existent case in submissions, and the Board disregarded the hallucinated citation and reminded the applicant that false citations are serious.
Monster Energy Company v Pacific Smoke International Inc. · Trademarks Opposition Board
“This citation appears to be an AI “hallucination,” as discussed in paragraph 5 of Diseño Textil.”
Cases that don't exist
- Hennes & Mauritz AB v M & S Meat Shops Inc, 2012 TMOB 7
clia.ca ↗
The file →
- Monster Energy Company v Pacific Smoke International Inc. involved a lawyer citing a case that did not exist.
- The Board called the citation an AI hallucination and disregarded it.
- The outcome was a warning, not a monetary sanction.
- Trademarks Opposition Board, Canada.
- 2024 TMOB 211; the Board cited Zhang v Chen and Diseño Textil.
Caught, not sanctioned
A lawyer cited non-existent cases in written submissions, and the Board disregarded the false citations with no other consequence noted.
Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A. v Sara Ghassi · Trademarks Opposition Board
“Whether accidental or deliberate, reliance on false citations is a serious matter [see Zhang v Chen, 2024 BCSC 285].”
Cases that don't exist
- Vivat Holdings Ltd v Menasha Canada Ltd, 2001 FCA 278
- M & M Meats Shops Ltd v M & M Products Inc, 2000 FCT 396
- Molson Breweries v John Labatt Ltd, [2000] 3 SCR 890
+1 more
clia.ca ↗
The file →
- Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A. v Sara Ghassi involved a lawyer citing cases that did not exist.
- The Board disregarded the fake cases and noted no other consequences.
- No sanction was imposed beyond disregarding the citations.
- Trademarks Opposition Board, Canada.
- 2024 TMOB 150; the Board mentioned possible generative AI but named no tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
William Norman faced potential sanctions in two counties after ChatGPT created hallucinated quotes and left a prompt in a court document.
William Norman · William Norman
cleveland.com ↗
The file →
- William Norman faced potential sanctions.
- ChatGPT created hallucinated quotes and left a prompt in one court document.
- The page reports potential sanctions but no imposed sanction amount.
- The court and location are not named on the page.
- The page says the issue involved two counties and ChatGPT.
Referred to the bar
Lawyers faced disciplinary proceedings after filing an AI-generated brief containing nearly 30 defective citations, misquotes, and non-existent cases.
MyPillow litigation · Lawyers in the MyPillow litigation
corporatecounselnow.com ↗
The file →
- The MyPillow litigation involved lawyers facing disciplinary proceedings.
- They filed an AI-generated brief with nearly 30 defective citations, misquotes, and non-existent cases.
- The page reports disciplinary proceedings, not a completed monetary sanction.
- No court, judge, or exact date is named on the page.
- The article says the brief was AI-generated but does not name the tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
Relator’s expert used ChatGPT to draft an expert report with fabricated CMS testimony and bogus citations, and defendants moved to sanction counsel and seek disqualification.
United States ex rel. Khoury v. Mountain West Anesthesia, LLC · U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada · NV
“if fines and public embarrassment were effective deterrents, there would not be so many cases to cite.”
texaslawbook.net ↗
The file →
- United States ex rel. Khoury v. Mountain West Anesthesia, LLC; relator’s counsel was at issue
- An expert report used ChatGPT and contained fabricated CMS testimony, invented manuals and miscited regulations
- Defendants moved for sanctions, fee shifting and disqualification; no sanction order is stated on the page
- U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, federal court in Nevada
- Aug. 13 motion; the page says the misconduct may lead to disqualification and dismissal
Caught, not sanctioned
The CPS filed fake AI-generated case citations in the High Court and apologized after being caught.
CPS caught using fake AI cases in High Court · CPS · High Court
legalcheek.com ↗
The file →
- CPS was caught using fake AI cases in the High Court.
- The filing contained AI-fabricated citations.
- The page reports an apology, not a sanction.
- High Court, location not specified on the page.
- Published Jul 13 2026; no AI tool or judge named.
Caught, not sanctioned
Civil Rights Corps accused Nevada County prosecutors of filing a habeas corpus brief with AI-generated fabricated legal authorities, prompting state Supreme Court attention.
Nevada County prosecutors habeas corpus brief · California Supreme Court · CA
dailyjournal.com ↗
The file →
- Nevada County prosecutors were accused in a habeas corpus brief matter.
- Civil Rights Corps said the brief included AI-generated fabricated legal authorities.
- The page does not report a sanction; only that the issue prompted state Supreme Court attention.
- California Supreme Court, California.
- Date and AI tool are not stated on the page.
The plaintiff’s reply brief used ChatOn to create false case citations, and the court ordered the attorney to pay a $1,000 penalty.
Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp. · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · NY
gtlaw.com ↗
The file →
- Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp.; the plaintiff’s attorney was penalized
- The reply brief included numerous case citations created by ChatOn that were false
- The court ordered a $1,000 penalty
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
- Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst found mitigating factors, including remorse and voluntary CLE participation
Fined
$5K
David Lutz admitted he used AI and cited a phony case in a Minnesota filing; Judge Christian Sandy fined him and referred him for discipline.
David Lutz matter · David Lutz · Minnesota state court · MN
wral.com ↗
The file →
- David Lutz was the attorney named in the Minnesota incident.
- He cited a phony case after using AI and forgot to cross-reference it.
- Judge Christian Sandy fined him $5,000 and referred him to the state board.
- The article places the matter in Minnesota state court.
- The sanction came in July, and the referral was for possible discipline.
Caught, not sanctioned
Frederick Knack filed a brief citing a nonexistent Minnesota case and other fake cases generated by AI; the court caught the hallucinations.
State by Sunquist versus Provost · Frederick Knack · Hennepin County Court · MN
“the court wonders if this citation may be the result of an AI generated hallucination”
wral.com ↗
The file →
- Frederick Knack was the Minnesota attorney named in the filing.
- He cited a nonexistent 1992 case and other cases after using AI without checking them.
- The article reports no sanction in this incident.
- Hennepin County Court in Minnesota was the venue.
- Judge Lourie Miller said the citation may have been an AI generated hallucination.
Referred to the bar
An expert report drafted with generative AI included citations to non-existent academic articles, and the matter was referred onward.
Dame Sharp · Dame Sharp
kennedyslaw.com ↗
The file →
- Dame Sharp was the named matter on the page.
- An expert used generative AI to draft a report with fake academic citations.
- The outcome described was a referral.
- No court or location is given on the page.
- The page names generative AI but no specific tool or quoted judge statement.
Caught, not sanctioned
Three lawyers faced possible career-ending action after AI-generated fake case citations were discovered in a Family Court custody battle.
King's Counsel disciplinary action · Family Court
adelaidenow.com.au ↗
The file →
- Three lawyers were the subject of the reported action.
- AI-generated fake case citations were discovered in a custody battle.
- The reported outcome was possible career loss, not a stated sanction order.
- The court was Family Court.
- The article gives no date, judge, tool, or citation strings.
Referred to the bar
A New York Commercial Division decision in Jennie imposed fees and disciplinary referrals after lawyers failed to proofread AI-assisted filings containing fabricated cases or misquoted authorities.
Jennie · New York Commercial Division · NY
insidetechlaw.com ↗
The file →
- Jennie was a New York Commercial Division incident mentioned by the page.
- Lawyers submitted AI-assisted filings with fabricated cases or misquoted legal authorities.
- The court imposed fees and disciplinary referrals.
- The court was the New York Commercial Division in New York.
- The page says recent decisions imposed fees and even disciplinary referrals after lawyers failed to proofread AI-assisted filings.
Fined
A New York Commercial Division decision in Ader imposed fees after lawyers failed to proofread AI-assisted filings containing fabricated cases or misquoted authorities.
Ader · New York Commercial Division · NY
insidetechlaw.com ↗
The file →
- Ader was a New York Commercial Division incident mentioned by the page.
- Lawyers submitted AI-assisted filings with fabricated cases or misquoted legal authorities.
- The court imposed fees.
- The court was the New York Commercial Division in New York.
- The page says recent decisions imposed fees after lawyers failed to proofread AI-assisted filings.
Referred to the bar
$10K
A King’s Counsel, junior counsel and their instructing solicitor were referred to disciplinary bodies after AI hallucinations appeared in their court submissions.
Emma McGrath-Cohen article incident · A King’s Counsel, his junior counsel and their instructing solicitor · state legal professional disciplinary bodies
afr.com ↗
The file →
- A King’s Counsel, junior counsel and their instructing solicitor were referred to disciplinary bodies.
- AI hallucinations were found in their court submissions.
- The instructing solicitor was ordered to pay $10,000 in costs.
- They were referred to state legal professional disciplinary bodies.
- The article says they did not adequately explain how the errors occurred.
Fined
A law firm cited GenAI-hallucinated cases and was ordered to pay wasted costs to the opposing party.
United Arab Emirates wasted-costs matter · court in the United Arab Emirates
thetimeblawg.com ↗
The file →
- A law firm in a UAE matter was cited on the page
- It filed GenAI-hallucinated cases in court
- The court ordered AED 282,508 in wasted costs
- The court was in the United Arab Emirates
- The page gives no date or judge name and says the firm cited hallucinated cases
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
A lawyer was referred to a disciplinary regulator after filing two documents that relied on non-existent citations and quotes.
ChatGPT blunder sees lawyer referred to regulator · Disciplinary regulator
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
- A lawyer was referred to a disciplinary regulator.
- The page says two filed documents relied on non-existent citations and quotes.
- The sanction was referral; no amount is stated.
- The article names ChatGPT as the AI tool.
- Published Dec. 31, 2025; the page gives no case caption or judge quote.
Reprimanded
The principal of a Victorian boutique firm was reprimanded for breaching the Supreme Court’s guidance on GenAI in litigation.
Reprimand for principal lawyer for using AI in estate litigation · Supreme Court of Victoria · VIC
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
- The principal of a Victorian boutique firm was reprimanded.
- The page says the lawyer used AI in estate litigation.
- The sanction was a reprimand.
- The court was the Supreme Court of Victoria.
- Published Dec. 31, 2025; no tool, date, or judge quote is given.
Referred to the bar
A South Australian solicitor and two Victoria-based counsel were referred to regulators for relying on AI-prepared material.
Solicitor, 2 counsel referred to regulator for AI use · A South Australian solicitor and two Victoria-based counsel · Respective legal regulators
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
- A solicitor and two counsel were referred to regulators.
- The page says they relied on material prepared by AI.
- The sanction was referral to their respective legal regulators.
- The page identifies South Australia and Victoria.
- Published Dec. 31, 2025; no AI tool or judge quote is stated.
Caught, not sanctioned
A Melbourne law firm filed court documents containing citations fabricated by generative AI.
Melbourne firm busted using AI-fabricated citations · A Melbourne law firm · Court not specified · VIC
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
- A Melbourne law firm was caught using AI-fabricated citations.
- The page says court documents contained fabricated citations made by generative AI.
- No sanction amount or type is stated on the page.
- The matter is described as Melbourne-based and in court.
- Published Dec. 31, 2025; no tool or judge quote is given.
Caught, not sanctioned
A Victorian lawyer was professionally sanctioned for using AI in court.
A Victorian lawyer sanctioned for AI use · Supreme Court of Victoria · VIC
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
- A Victorian lawyer was sanctioned.
- The page says the lawyer used AI in court.
- The sanction was professional sanctions, with no amount stated.
- The court was in Victoria, Australia.
- Published Dec. 31, 2025; the page gives no tool or judge quote.
Caught, not sanctioned
A partner for National Qatar Bank filed nonexistent case citations generated by an AI tool and faced serious professional consequences.
National Qatar Bank matter · a partner at a firm acting for National Qatar Bank
legalfly.com ↗
The file →
- A partner at a firm acting for National Qatar Bank was involved
- He did the same and cited cases that didn't exist
- The source was an AI tool that hallucinated citations
- The page says he faced serious professional consequences
- The article gives no court, date, sanction amount, or tool name
Caught, not sanctioned
A lawyer cited nonexistent cases in court after an AI tool hallucinated legal authorities, and the page says he faced serious professional consequences.
Harringey LBC matter · a lawyer at Harringey LBC
legalfly.com ↗
The file →
- A lawyer at Harringey LBC was involved
- He cited cases in court that didn't exist
- The AI hallucinated plausible-sounding citations
- The page says he faced serious professional consequences
- The article gives no court, date, sanction amount, or tool name
A New York lawyer filed a brief with several non-existent court cases fabricated by an LLM and was sanctioned.
New York lawyer sanctioned for using fake ChatGPT cases in legal brief · NY
jbima.com ↗
The file →
- A New York lawyer was sanctioned.
- He submitted a legal brief citing several non-existent court cases.
- The sanction type is not specified beyond sanctions.
- The matter was in New York state court.
- The article says the cases were fabricated by an LLM, and it was in 2023.
Fined
An AI-generated witness statement contained fictitious authorities, and the County Court imposed a wasted costs order.
Birmingham County Court case · County Court
cms.law ↗
The file →
- The page refers to a recent Birmingham County Court case.
- An AI-generated witness statement advanced fictitious authorities.
- The court imposed a wasted costs order.
- County Court; Birmingham.
- The judge said the problem was failure to verify outputs and supervise document control.
Warned
A litigant filed AI-generated fake case citations, and the High Court condemned the fabrication but imposed no immediate contempt finding or personal costs order.
Taiwo v Homelets of Bath Ltd · High Court
cms.law ↗
The file →
- Taiwo v Homelets of Bath Ltd was the case discussed.
- AI-generated case citations, including a non-existent Court of Appeal authority, were filed.
- No immediate contempt finding or personal costs order was imposed solely for the citation fabrication.
- High Court; England and Wales.
- The court found credibility issues and noted potential misconduct or contempt.
Caught, not sanctioned
Annapolis officials were accused in a federal class action of filing a motion with at least one fake case and phantom quotations, but no sanction had been imposed on the page.
Annapolis City Attorney D. Michael Lyles · D. Michael Lyles · U.S. District Court · MD
“Plaintiffs cannot be sure, but the motion’s inclusion of fabricated citations and quotations are hallmarks of an AI generated motion with ‘hallucinations,’”
thedailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
- Annapolis City Attorney D. Michael Lyles was named on the page.
- Plaintiffs alleged the city's motion to decertify cited at least one nonexistent case and misquoted others.
- The page reports no sanction yet; it says Lyles left the job after the accusation.
- The matter is described as a federal class-action lawsuit concerning public housing in Maryland.
- The page says the filing appeared to be an AI-generated motion with 'hallucinations'.
Reprimanded
A defendant’s solicitor used AI in opening submissions, producing non-existent citations, and the Victorian Supreme Court reprimanded her.
Re Walker · Victorian Supreme Court
“it was unacceptable for AI to be used by solicitors or barristers in the production of court documents, unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified.”
bnlaw.com.au ↗
The file →
- Re Walker; the defendant’s solicitor was sanctioned
- AI was used in preparing opening submissions with hallucinated citations
- The court imposed a reprimand with no monetary amount stated
- Victorian Supreme Court, Australia
- Justice Moore found four unfamiliar authorities chambers could not locate
Fined
A junior barrister filed a judicial review pleading with five nonexistent authorities, and the court ordered wasted costs and referred the matter to regulators.
Ayinde litigation and a junior barrister · High Court
“the submission of fabricated authorities as “appalling professional misbehaviour””
windowsforum.com ↗
The file →
- Ayinde litigation and a junior barrister were sanctioned.
- A pleading in judicial review cited five authorities that did not exist.
- The court ordered wasted costs and referred the lawyers to regulators.
- High Court, England and Wales.
- 2025; the court said the conduct could reflect deliberate fabrication or unverified AI use.
Fined
$5K
Judge William S. Stickman IV found Blackburn filed briefs with wholly fabricated quotations and misrepresented authorities linked to generative AI, then imposed sanctions.
Jakes v. Youngblood et al. · Tyrone Blackburn · W.D. Pa. · PA
“Whoever or whatever drafted the briefs signed and filed by Blackburn, it is clear that he, at the very best, acted with culpable neglect of his professional obligations.”
posts.diddydocket.com ↗
The file →
- Jakes v. Youngblood et al.; Tyrone Blackburn was sanctioned.
- His briefs contained wholly fabricated quotations and misrepresented authorities.
- The court imposed a $5,000 sanction and some of T.D. Jakes' attorney's fees.
- W.D. Pa., federal court in Pennsylvania.
- Orders issued between June and October 2025; the court linked the filings to generative AI.
Filing dismissed
A litigant in person used AI-generated authorities to challenge an election result; the High Court dismissed the petition and ordered £19,000 costs.
Reform UK Candidate Case (Worcestershire Election Challenge) · High Court
“an invention, indeed a hallucination, of AI.”
theaccessgroup.com ↗
The file →
- Reform UK Candidate Case (Worcestershire Election Challenge) involved a litigant in person.
- He used AI-generated authorities to challenge a local election result.
- The High Court dismissed the petition and ordered £19,000 costs.
- The court was the High Court in England and Wales.
- The page says one cited case supposedly from 1912 did not exist.
Referred to the bar
A barrister cited the fabricated case 'Y (China)' in an immigration appeal, and the Upper Tribunal referred him to the Bar Standards Board.
MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKUT 305 (IAC) · Upper Tribunal
“null”
theaccessgroup.com ↗
The file →
- MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a barrister.
- He cited the fabricated case 'Y (China)' during an immigration appeal.
- The Upper Tribunal referred him to the Bar Standards Board.
- The court was the Upper Tribunal (IAC).
- The page says he doubled down by producing an internet printout with misleading statements.
Referred to the bar
A pupil barrister filed judicial review grounds citing five non-existent cases and misstating the Housing Act 1996; the High Court issued a wasted costs order and referred him.
Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) · High Court
“Freely available generative AI tools… are not capable of conducting reliable legal research.”
theaccessgroup.com ↗
The file →
- Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey involved a pupil barrister.
- He cited five non-existent cases and misstated the Housing Act 1996 in judicial review grounds.
- The High Court issued a wasted costs order and referred him to the Bar Standards Board.
- The court was the High Court in the UK.
- The judgment warned that freely available generative AI tools are not capable of reliable legal research.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
Counsel was said to have filed a letter brief with fabricated AI citations, and Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro dismissed the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
LaPaglia v. Valve Corp. · S.D. Cal. · CA
Cases that don't exist
- Bassett's Adm'r v. Cunningham's Adm'r, 50 Va. 684
reason.com ↗
The file →
- LaPaglia v. Valve Corp. involved petitioner's counsel.
- Valve said counsel submitted a letter brief with AI-fabricated citations.
- Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro dismissed the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
- S.D. Cal., federal court in California.
- The page says the counsel had been recently sanctioned by an arbitrator; ChatGPT was used only in a law-clerk check.
A federal judge sanctioned Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Robert Carey, and Celeste Boyd after briefs in an OnlyFans case contained AI-generated hallucinated citations.
OnlyFans users v. Fenix International Ltd. · Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; Robert Carey; Celeste Boyd · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“He wrote that allowing revisions would unfairly burden defendants who had already responded, noting that the proposed corrections still contained errors.”
complex.com ↗
The file →
- OnlyFans users v. Fenix International Ltd. involved Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Robert Carey, and Celeste Boyd.
- Four briefs reportedly contained fabricated or hallucinated legal citations generated through AI tools.
- Judge Fred Slaughter imposed $10,000 on the firm and Carey, plus $3,000 on Boyd.
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; Seattle-based firm; California federal case.
- The article says Boyd used ChatGPT to draft and edit sections and failed to independently verify the output.
Fined
$20K
Attorney Greta Kemp Martin filed legal memoranda with fabricated case citations and nonexistent quotes, and the court sanctioned her over $20,000 and ordered AI-hallucination CLE.
Greta Kemp Martin sanctions order · Greta Kemp Martin · US District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · MS
“"highly suspcious"”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Greta Kemp Martin was sanctioned.
- She submitted legal memoranda with fabricated case citations and nonexistent quotes.
- The court imposed over $20,000 in sanctions and ordered CLE on AI hallucinations.
- The sanction came from the US District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
- Judge Sharion Aycock said she was "highly suspcious" that an AI tool generated the made-up authorities.
Fined
$15K
A federal judge fined a San Diego attorney $15,000 and dismissed a $12.6 million winery lawsuit after finding he cited 15 fake cases using AI.
Unnamed winery lawsuit · San Diego attorney · federal court · OR
bizjournals.com ↗
The file →
- Unnamed winery lawsuit and a San Diego attorney were sanctioned.
- The attorney cited 15 fake cases using AI.
- The court fined him $15,000 and dismissed the lawsuit.
- Federal court in Oregon.
- No AI tool or judge name is given on the page.
Warned
Honolulu Deputy Corporation Counsel David Sgan filed a brief using AI-generated fake law in a major civil rights case, and Circuit Judge Karen Holma gave him only a scolding.
Honolulu Deputy Corporation Counsel David Sgan case · David Sgan · Hawaiʻi Circuit Court · HI
civilbeat.org ↗
The file →
- David Sgan was identified by name in the article.
- He used AI-generated fake law in a brief in a major civil rights case.
- Judge Karen Holma let him off with a scolding, not a formal sanction.
- Hawaiʻi Circuit Court, state of Hawaiʻi.
- December 17, 2025; the article says he used AI-generated fake law.
Caught, not sanctioned
Kaʻōnohiokalā J. Aukai IV filed a brief with six flawed citations, including two fabricated ones, and Circuit Judge Kelsey Kawano accepted his apology and imposed no sanctions.
Kaʻōnohiokalā J. Aukai IV case · Kaʻōnohiokalā J. Aukai IV · Hawaiʻi Circuit Court · HI
civilbeat.org ↗
The file →
- Kaʻōnohiokalā J. Aukai IV was the lawyer named in the article.
- He filed a brief where all six citations were flawed, including two completely fabricated.
- Judge Kelsey Kawano accepted the apology and declined sanctions.
- Hawaiʻi Circuit Court, state of Hawaiʻi.
- December 17, 2025; Aukai said the flaws were the result of AI hallucinations.
Caught, not sanctioned
Mark Valencia filed a brief with a non-existent case and a misstated Hawaiʻi Supreme Court decision; Judge Jordon Kimura found a Rule 11 violation and said he would sanction him later.
Valencia case · Mark Valencia · Hawaiʻi Circuit Court · HI
civilbeat.org ↗
The file →
- Mark Valencia was the lawyer criticized in Hawaiʻi Circuit Court.
- He submitted a brief with a fake case and a misstated Hawaiʻi Supreme Court decision.
- Judge Kimura found a Rule 11 violation but had not yet set the sanction.
- Hawaiʻi Circuit Court, state of Hawaiʻi.
- December 17, 2025; Valencia blamed his associate and said the citations were AI-generated hallucinations.
Referred to the bar
$10K
A solicitor and two barristers were referred to disciplinary regulators after AI-produced submissions and authorities contained fake and inaccurate citations.
Mertz & Mertz (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 222 · Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
“the “extent and in what way it was used remains opaque, notwithstanding the written submissions of the solicitor responsible.””
qlsproctor.com.au ↗
The file →
- Mertz & Mertz (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 222 involved a solicitor and two barristers.
- AI was used to prepare a Summary of Argument and List of Authorities with non-existent and inaccurate citations.
- The court referred them to regulators and ordered $10,000 in costs against the solicitor.
- Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia; federal jurisdiction; location not stated.
- The article says this was the first time an appellate court in Australia sanctioned practitioners for AI misuse.
Michael Chambers filed a motion containing ChatGPT-generated fake case citations, and the court sanctioned him for the AI-made fabrications.
Arthur v. City of Hartford · Michael Chambers · U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · CT
Cases that don't exist
- Mati v. City of Hartford
- Smith v. City of Hartford
- Johnson v. City of Hartford
nytimes.com ↗
The file →
- Arthur v. City of Hartford; Michael Chambers was sanctioned.
- He filed a motion with ChatGPT-generated fake legal citations.
- The court imposed a $500 monetary fine.
- U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
- The page says the fake cases came from ChatGPT.
A solo practitioner used Microsoft CoPilot to find supporting caselaw, filed it without checking the cases existed, and the bankruptcy court ordered a rule to show cause.
In re Richburg · Bankruptcy Court in South Carolina · SC
““for his blind reliance on a technological tool which he did not seem to fully understand.””
sandbergphoenix.com ↗
The file →
- In re Richburg; solo practitioner in South Carolina
- He used Microsoft CoPilot to find cases and filed them without checking they existed
- No monetary sanctions; the court required AI-ethics CLE
- Bankruptcy court in South Carolina
- Date not given; court called it a lesson learned for the bar in general
Fined
An attorney filed a brief with citation deficiencies consistent with AI hallucinations, and Judge Alison Bachus sanctioned the attorney.
Arizona Social Security Case · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · AZ
aistandardofcare.com ↗
The file →
- Arizona Social Security Case; an attorney was sanctioned.
- The brief was replete with citation-related deficiencies, including fabricated, misleading, or unsupported cases.
- Judge Alison Bachus sanctioned the attorney.
- D. Ariz., federal court in Arizona.
- The page says 12 of 19 cases cited were fabricated, misleading, or unsupported.
Fined
A Commercial Division justice awarded fees under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 against clients and counsel after AI-fabricated citations appeared in a summary-judgment opposition and sanctions opposition.
Ader v. Ader · Commercial Division, New York Supreme Court · NY
“Use of AI is not the problem per se.”
nlrg.com ↗
The file →
- Ader v. Ader; clients and counsel were sanctioned
- A summary-judgment opposition contained AI-fabricated citations
- The court awarded fees under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1
- Commercial Division, New York Supreme Court, New York County
- The page says the sanctions motion response contained more than double the number of fake citations
Caught, not sanctioned
A relator’s legal team filed an expert report with fake citations and fabricated testimony, and the defendants sought sanctions and disqualification.
In re the relator’s legal team · U.S. District Court for the District of Utah · UT
“"The liability for using these new technologies without proper supervision falls squarely on the attorney. AI is a powerful tool, but it lacks professional judgment and a duty of candor to the court. Attorneys must remain the final check, or they will be held accountable for the errors it produces."”
qpwblaw.com ↗
The file →
- A relator’s legal team in a Utah federal case
- An expert report contained AI-generated falsehoods, including fake citations and fabricated testimony
- The defendants moved for sanctions and disqualification; the article says the court permitted withdrawal but did not dismiss the issue
- U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
- No date was given; the article attributes the misconduct to a generative AI tool and alleges willful blindness
Fined
$6K
A New Jersey federal judge sanctioned attorney Leo Maury Gordon for filing a hallucinated AI case citation and ignoring repeated warnings to verify his submissions.
Leo Maury Gordon · Leo Maury Gordon · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
law360.com ↗
The file →
- Leo Maury Gordon was sanctioned in the D.N.J.
- He relied on a hallucinated AI case citation in a civil suit accusing Sean Combs and others.
- The court ordered him to pay $6,000 and self-report to disciplinary authorities.
- U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, New Jersey.
- Law360 said the judge found he ignored repeated warnings to verify his filings.
Fined
$8K
Farivar filed an AI-drafted brief with fabricated quotations, and the Court of Appeal struck the brief and ordered him to pay $7,500.
Shayan v. Shakib · Fahim Farivar · California Court of Appeal, Division One · CA
“It is undisputed that appellant’s attorney, Fahiin Farivar, filed a brief containing numerous fabricated quotations—that is, language falsely attributed to published decisions.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
- Shayan v. Shakib; Tarzana attorney Fahim Farivar
- He filed a brief containing fabricated quotations and misrepresented legal authority
- Court of Appeal struck the brief and imposed a $7,500 monetary sanction
- California Court of Appeal, Division One
- Dec. 2, 2025; panel said the sanction reflected time spent verifying citations and Farivar’s refusal to accept responsibility
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
A practitioner filed a submission quoting a fictional Court of Appeal judgment generated by ChatGPT, and the judge said it wasted public resources.
LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia · Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal · QLD
“the case simply does not exist”
nicholeslaw.com.au ↗
The file →
- LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia; a practitioner was involved.
- A written submission quoted a fictional Court of Appeal judgment generated by ChatGPT.
- No sanction is stated on the page; the judge said it wasted public resources.
- Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Queensland.
- 2025; the judge said 'the case simply does not exist' and 'caused a significant waste of public resources.'
Caught, not sanctioned
An AI-generated fake case was cited in a legal brief filed in his courtroom, and he found it did not exist.
State of Illinois v. Unknown · Jeffrey Goffinet · Williamson County court · IL
““People are going to use [AI], and the courts are not going to be able to be a dam across a river that’s already flowing at flood capacity,””
route-fifty.com ↗
The file →
- Jeffrey Goffinet noticed a brief in his courtroom cited a nonexistent case.
- The brief contained AI-generated fake legal material.
- The article reports no sanction or penalty in this incident.
- Williamson County, Illinois state court.
- Last spring; Goffinet said courts must learn to coexist with AI.
Caught, not sanctioned
A mother in person filed a skeleton argument assisted by AI that included non-existent citations, and the court noted the errors.
D (a child) (recusal) · Court of Appeal
“It is entirely understandable that litigants in person should resort to artificial intelligence for help.”
unit.law ↗
The file →
- D (a child) (recusal) involved a mother acting in person.
- She filed an AI-assisted skeleton argument for a recusal appeal.
- The page says some citations did not exist at all.
- Court of Appeal; no sanction is described on the page.
- Baker LJ said litigants in person may understandably resort to AI for help.
Caught, not sanctioned
The solicitor filed documents with entirely fabricated AI-generated citations and was formally sanctioned.
Federal Circuit and Family Court matter involving a Victorian solicitor · Federal Circuit and Family Court
legalassistant.au ↗
The file →
- A Victorian solicitor in the Federal Circuit and Family Court
- Submitted documents containing entirely fabricated citations generated by AI
- Formally sanctioned; stripped of principal rights and supervised for two years
- Federal Circuit and Family Court, Australia
- A month after the August 2025 incident; first Australian lawyer formally sanctioned for AI-related misconduct
Caught, not sanctioned
Gemini
Michael Cohen used Google Bard to generate citations for his own defense counsel and faced court repercussions.
Michael Cohen · Michael Cohen
nwlextech.com ↗
The file →
- Michael Cohen was named as the lawyer involved.
- He used Google Bard to generate citations for his own defense counsel.
- The page does not state a sanction amount or type.
- Federal case context in the United States.
- The page says Google Bard is now Gemini.
A worker filed AI-generated WCAT submissions with fabricated cases and policies; WCAT dismissed the appeal and warned of possible costs.
A2501051 · Workplace Safety and Compensation Appeal Tribunal
“It appears that the worker’s submission was created, at least partly, with the use of artificial intelligence.”
Cases that don't exist
- Zhang v. Chen, 2024 BCSC 285
- Geismayr v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1970, 2025 BCCRT 217
- AQ v. BW, 2025 BCCRT 907
+1 more
wcblawyers.com ↗
The file →
- A2501051 at WCAT involved a worker's submission.
- The worker used AI to prepare arguments for a prohibited action appeal.
- The submission contained fake cases, incorrect policy, and bad legal arguments.
- WCAT dismissed the appeal and noted AI-based submissions can lead to costs.
- The deputy registrar said the submission was partly created with artificial intelligence and cited hallucinated cases.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
An attorney used ChatGPT to draft a brief that cited made-up cases, and the resulting case was later recognized as fabricated.
Varghese v. China Southern Airlines
Cases that don't exist
- Varghese v. China Southern Airlines
zdnet.com ↗
The file →
- Varghese v. China Southern Airlines involved an attorney who used ChatGPT to prepare a legal brief.
- The brief contained legal cases that did not actually exist.
- The page does not name a sanction in this incident.
- The article says the problem case was fabricated by ChatGPT.
- The page gives no judge, court, or sanction date for this incident.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
A litigant in person filed a submission using a legal phrase that looked Scottish or American, and the judge said it had the hallmarks of ChatGPT.
Reddan v An Bord Pleanála · High Court of Ireland
“This sounds like something that derived from an artificial intelligence source. It has all the hallmarks of ChatGPT, or some similar AI tool.”
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
- Reddan v An Bord Pleanála involved a litigant in person.
- The filing used a phrase not used in Ireland and suggested AI generation.
- No sanction is described on the page.
- High Court of Ireland.
- The judge said it had the hallmarks of ChatGPT or similar AI.
Warned
A solicitor insisted that an expert witness use an AI-generated report, and Mr Justice Waksman called it a gross breach of duty.
Mr Justice Waksman · Construction and Technology Court
“That to my mind is a gross breach of duty on the part of the solicitor.”
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
- A solicitor in the Construction and Technology Court was involved.
- He insisted that an expert witness use an AI-generated report.
- Mr Justice Waksman described it as a gross breach of duty.
- Construction and Technology Court, England and Wales.
- The page names Waksman and quotes his criticism of the solicitor.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
A litigant in person used ChatGPT to draft an appeal submission containing fake cases, and the ruling reiterated that an unrepresented person must not mislead the court.
Barton v Wright Hassell LLP · UK Supreme Court
““an unrepresented person is still under a duty not to mislead the court””
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
- Barton v Wright Hassell LLP involved a litigant in person.
- He used ChatGPT to draft a submission with fake cases.
- The page reports no sanction, only a warning principle from the ruling.
- UK Supreme Court.
- The ruling quoted the duty of an unrepresented person not to mislead the court.
Fined
The claimant’s barrister filed a submission containing false citations, and the court reduced the claimants awarded costs from £20,000 to £6,500.
Ayinde v Haringey · High Court of England and Wales, Admin Division
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
- Ayinde v Haringey involved the claimant’s barrister.
- He filed a submission containing false citations.
- The court reduced awarded costs from £20,000 to £6,500.
- High Court of England and Wales, Admin Division.
- The article says the case drew attention as one of the first major AI-caused problems in England.
Warned
A plaintiff filed AI-generated briefs with non-existent case law and then objected when the magistrate judge warned him about the citations.
Plaintiffs' AI-citation objection matter · U.S. District Court (magistrate judge and objections order)
“Finally, Plaintiffs [sic] objects to the Magistrate Judge’s “criticism” of his use of artificial intelligence to cite to non-existent case law and errors in other citations.”
Cases that don't exist
- Solomon v. Norwest Corp., 546 S.E.2d 330 (Ga. 2001)
abovethelaw.com ↗
The file →
- Plaintiff and his AI-generated filings were called out for fake citations.
- He cited non-existent case law and then objected to the warning.
- The court issued a warning, not a monetary sanction.
- U.S. District Court; federal; location not specified on the page.
- The page says opposing counsel identified multiple specific false citations, including Solomon v. Norwest Corp.
Referred to the bar
Counsel for Father filed an appellate brief with hallucinated case citations and quotations, and the Arizona Court of Appeals referred the matter to the State Bar of Arizona.
Washburn v. Houston · counsel for Father · Arizona Court of Appeals · AZ
heyannette.com ↗
The file →
- Washburn v. Houston involved counsel for Father.
- The appellate brief contained hallucinated case citations and quotations.
- The court referred the matter to the State Bar of Arizona.
- Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona.
- January 5, 2026; the court said counsel had a nondelegable duty of candor.
Warned
The California Supreme Court told a lower court to consider sanctioning Jesse Wilson over allegedly fake AI-generated citations in a filing.
California Supreme Court Orders Sanctions Review of DA Accused of Using Hallucinating AI · Nevada County District Attorney Jesse Wilson · California Supreme Court · CA
law.com ↗
The file →
- Nevada County District Attorney Jesse Wilson was accused of using AI-fabricated citations.
- The filing allegedly contained fake, artificial intelligence-generated citations.
- The California Supreme Court ordered a lower court to consider sanctions.
- Court: California Supreme Court, California.
- January 16, 2026 article; Wilson said human error, not generative AI, caused the errors.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
Attorneys signed a brief containing AI-hallucinated legal citations and had to respond to a judge's order to explain why they should not be punished.
Jason Alatidd article (Kansas federal court brief) · federal court in Kansas · KS
cjonline.com ↗
The file →
- Attorneys who signed a Kansas federal-court brief
- The brief contained AI-hallucinated legal citations
- They responded to a judge's order to explain why they should not be punished
- Federal court in Kansas
- Jan. 8, 2026 article; the AI tool named was ChatGPT
Fined
$31K
Lawyers in California were fined $31,000 and had evidence excluded after filing seven completely fictional citations.
Lacey case · CA
dbllawyers.com ↗
The file →
- The Lacey case involved California lawyers
- They used seven completely fictional citations
- The court fined them $31,000 and excluded evidence
- It was a California case, but no court or judge is named
- The page gives no date or AI tool
Fined
$5K
Defense counsel filed a brief and later papers citing 23 fabricated cases, then the New York appellate court imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction.
Joshua A. Douglass · Joshua A. Douglass · New York appellate court · NY
“Defendant’s opening brief cites six cases which do not exist.”
legalethicslawyer.blog ↗
The file →
- Joshua A. Douglass was sanctioned in a New York foreclosure appeal.
- He filed a brief and later papers containing hallucinated and fabricated legal authorities.
- The court imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction.
- The matter was in a New York appellate court.
- The opinion says he used AI and that five filings contained at least 23 fabricated cases.
Reprimanded
A lawyer in Australia used LLM-generated false citations and was stripped of his ability to practice as a principal lawyer.
The Australian incident
socialsciencespace.com ↗
The file →
- A lawyer in Australia, unnamed on the page, was sanctioned
- He used a large language model that generated false citations
- He was stripped of his ability to practice as a principal lawyer
- The page gives no court or judge name
- The article says he apologized and the citations were not due to human error or intent to deceive
Fined
$10K
An attorney filed fabricated case citations and quotations, and the court imposed a total $10,000 sanction.
Mid Cent. Operating Engrs. Health & Welfare Fund v HoosierVac LLC · State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department · NY
Cases that don't exist
- Mid Cent. Operating Engrs. Health & Welfare Fund v HoosierVac LLC, 2025 WL ...
hinshawlaw.com ↗
The file →
- Mid Cent. Operating Engrs. Health & Welfare Fund v HoosierVac LLC involved an attorney sanctioned for AI-fabricated citations.
- The filing contained fabricated case citations and quotations.
- The court imposed a total $10,000 sanction.
- The court was the State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.
- The page does not identify an AI tool or provide a quoted judge statement.
Caught, not sanctioned
The court found briefing with citations to nonexistent judicial opinions potentially derived from generative AI and sanctioned the respondent.
Eric Chibueze Nwaubani · Eric Chibueze Nwaubani · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · NY
websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com ↗
The file →
- Eric Chibueze Nwaubani was the respondent in the matter.
- His briefing contained citations to nonexistent judicial opinions.
- The court imposed sanctions, but the page excerpt does not state a monetary amount.
- The matter was in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The page says the fake citations were potentially derived from generative artificial intelligence.
Warned
The Supreme Court said lawyers were filing AI-drafted petitions containing fake judgments and warned that some cited cases and quotes did not exist.
Roop Rekha Verma PIL · Supreme Court of India
“We are alarmed to reflect that some lawyers have started using AI to draft petitions.”
dailypioneer.com ↗
The file →
- Roop Rekha Verma’s PIL was before the Supreme Court
- The bench said AI-drafted petitions contained non-existent judgments and fake quotes
- No sanction was imposed; the court issued a warning
- Supreme Court of India, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant
- Feb. 18, 2026; Justice Nagarathna cited 'Mercy vs Mankind' and said some quoted portions did not exist
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
The Upper Tribunal held a Hamid hearing over two immigration matters involving incorrect or fake case citations that did not match the cited cases.
UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid) [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“to put client letters and decision letters from the Home Office into an open source AI tool, such as ChatGPT, is to place this information on the internet in the public domain, and thus to breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege, and thus any regulated legal professional or firm that does so would, in addition to needing to bring this to the attention of their regulator, be advised to consult with the Information Commissioner’s Office.”
gowlingwlg.com ↗
The file →
- UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid) [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) was the latest case discussed.
- It involved two separate instances of suspected AI-invented or otherwise incorrect case citations.
- The article says one case looked trivial and the other serious, but the tribunal may not have actually sanctioned anyone.
- The court was the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).
- Published 2026-02-24; the article notes the tribunal may have been too quick to cry AI.
Warned
A federal judge ordered an attorney at Arete Law Group to file a sworn declaration after opposing counsel alleged dozens of AI hallucinations in multiple filings.
Arete Law Group matter · Arete Law Group · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · WA
law360.com ↗
The file →
- Arete Law Group was the firm identified in the article.
- Opposing counsel alleged dozens of artificial intelligence hallucinations across multiple case filings.
- The judge ordered a sworn declaration, signaling possible sanctions.
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Washington.
- Feb. 5, 2026; the article does not name the AI tool or quote the judge.
A pro se litigant used AI to generate fake citations in briefs and was fined $10,000.
Missouri pro se litigant case · Missouri court · MO
nysba.org ↗
The file →
- A Missouri pro se litigant was sanctioned.
- He used AI to generate fake citations in briefs.
- The court fined him $10,000.
- The case was in Missouri state court.
- The article does not give a date or case caption.
Caught, not sanctioned
Counsel filed a brief with fictitious case citations that the Tax Court said were likely generated by AI, but the opinion did not impose sanctions.
Clinco v. Commissioner · Clinco’s counsel · U.S. Tax Court
“Submitting a brief with fictitious caselaw is a recipe for sanctions.”
Cases that don't exist
- Cacchillo v. Commissioner
- Miller v. Commissioner
- Tefel v. Commissioner
currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com ↗
The file →
- Clinco v. Commissioner involved counsel for the taxpayers.
- The brief cited nonexistent cases in support of a notice-of-deficiency argument.
- The Tax Court warned that fake citations can lead to sanctions, but imposed none here.
- U.S. Tax Court; federal; judge Holmes’s opinion.
- T.C. Memo. 2026-16; the court said the citations suggested something cooked up by AI.
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
Two judicial review applications contained false case citations generated by non-specialist AI tools, and the Tribunal warned that supervisors and signatories risk referral.
R (on the application of Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“Legal professionals are obliged to ensure that legal arguments which are presented to the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal are factually and legally accurate.”
ein.org.uk ↗
The file →
- R (on the application of Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved two judicial review applications.
- The grounds and supporting material contained false and non-existent case citations from AI drafting.
- The Tribunal warned failures to check work are likely to result in referral to the SRA or another regulator.
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), UK.
- Published 2026-02-20; the page says ChatGPT was one open-source AI tool discussed.
Fined
An AI-drafted employee claim cited three phantom Full Bench authorities, and Deputy President World rejected it.
Deputy President World rejected a claim citing three phantom Full Bench authorities · Fair Work Commission
“Deputy President World rejected a claim citing three phantom Full Bench authorities, warning of costs.”
winterconsulting.com.au ↗
The file →
- AI-drafted employee claim cited three phantom Full Bench authorities.
- The filing used fabricated case references and was rejected.
- The page says there was a warning of costs, but gives no amount.
- Fair Work Commission; location not stated.
- 2025; the page does not name the AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
An attorney filed a brief with AI-generated case citations that did not exist and later resigned.
Court records show an attorney resigned after submitting a filing with AI-generated case citations that did not exist
threads.com ↗
The file →
- An attorney was involved in a filing with AI-generated case citations that did not exist.
- The filing used fabricated citations generated by AI.
- No sanction is stated on the page; the attorney resigned.
- The court is not identified on the page.
- The page gives no date, judge, or AI tool name.
Reprimanded
A Los Angeles attorney filed appellate briefs containing AI-hallucinated case law quotations and agreed to discipline from the California State Bar.
California State Bar disciplinary matter (Los Angeles attorney) · Los Angeles attorney · California State Bar · CA
law360.com ↗
The file →
- Los Angeles attorney disciplined by the California State Bar
- Filed appellate briefs rife with AI-hallucinated case law quotations
- Agreed to discipline; no amount stated
- California State Bar in California
- Feb. 26, 2026 article; stipulation approved Wednesday
Three lawyers were warned after using ChatGPT to cite fake or incorrect legal cases in court, and two were ordered to take an AI training course.
Dutch lawyers warned for misusing ChatGPT in court · Three lawyers in the Netherlands
nltimes.nl ↗
The file →
- Three lawyers in the Netherlands were warned
- They misused ChatGPT to cite fake or incorrect legal cases in court
- Sanction was a warning, and two lawyers had to take an AI training course
- No court or judge name is given in the page text
- The report says two were ordered to take an AI training course
Caught, not sanctioned
A filing cited nonexistent cases generated by AI, and the Third DCA warned courts should not have to parse citations to see whether cases exist.
Takefman v. Pickleball Club, LLC · Third District Court of Appeal · FL
“courts “should not have to parse case citations and parentheticals to discern whether cases exist.””
miamidadebar.org ↗
The file →
- Takefman v. Pickleball Club, LLC involved a filing with AI-generated nonexistent cases.
- The filing contained fabricated legal authority from AI.
- The court addressed the problem but the page does not report a sanction.
- Third District Court of Appeal, Florida.
- The page does not name the AI tool; it quotes the court on checking whether cases exist.
Caught, not sanctioned
A Massachusetts lawyer was sanctioned for filing AI-generated fictitious case citations.
Massachusetts Lawyer Sanctioned for AI-Generated Fictitious Case Citations · Massachusetts state court · MA
amerisurv.com ↗
The file →
- The page cites a Massachusetts lawyer sanctioned for AI-generated fictitious case citations.
- The lawyer filed fictitious citations created by AI.
- The article gives no sanction amount or named judge.
- Massachusetts state court, Massachusetts.
- No date or tool name is given on the page.
Fined
$1K
A self-represented litigant filed a factum citing fake authorities, and the ABKB ordered additional costs.
Barrette v. Wevers · Alberta Court of King’s Bench
“"wild goose chase"”
commerciallitigationblog.com ↗
The file →
- Barrette v. Wevers involved a self-represented litigant.
- His factum referenced at least three fake authorities, including two fake cases and one fake regulation.
- The ABKB ordered CA$1,000 per set of respondents in additional costs.
- The court was the Alberta Court of King’s Bench in Alberta.
- The ABKB said the litigant sent counsel and the court on a "wild goose chase" and had to "up the ante".
Fined
$500
A self-represented litigant filed a factum using AI that referenced three non-existent cases, and the ABCA ordered additional costs.
DJ v. SN · Alberta Court of Appeal
“"more substantial penalties" will follow in future cases of non-compliance with the Notice.”
commerciallitigationblog.com ↗
The file →
- DJ v. SN involved a self-represented litigant.
- Her factum admitted using AI and cited three non-existent cases.
- The ABCA awarded CA$500 in additional costs.
- The court was the Alberta Court of Appeal in Alberta.
- The court warned that "more substantial penalties" would follow for future non-compliance.
Referred to the bar
Birmingham firm City Laws lodged a judicial-review application with several false citations and was referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
City Laws · City Laws · Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber
“It matters not how such citation errors come about.”
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
- City Laws, a Birmingham immigration law firm, filed an application for judicial review with false citations.
- The firm said the grounds were drafted by Waheed Malik using an outdated precedent, blogs and personal notes.
- The tribunal referred senior solicitor Zubair Rasheed to the SRA.
- Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber; judge Fiona Lindsley.
- November 2025 decision, published on 24 February 2026; the tribunal said it was about supervision and not misleading the tribunal.
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
A solicitor submitted a filing with a fake case name and false citations; the Upper Tribunal said it would have referred him to regulators but for his self-reporting.
Tahir Mehmood Mohammed · Tahir Mehmood Mohammed · Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber
“It matters not how such citation errors come about.”
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
- Tahir Mehmood Mohammed, a solicitor at TMF Immigration Lawyers, filed false citations.
- He said he may have used Google AI mode and had also put client material into ChatGPT.
- The tribunal would have referred him to the IAA and SRA but for self-reporting.
- Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber; judge Fiona Lindsley.
- November 2025 decision, published on 24 February 2026; the judge said errors matter regardless of whether they came from a trainee or ChatGPT.
Warned
The Supreme Court said John Jones cited authorities that appeared to have been hallucinated by an AI application and warned such misuse could lead to contempt.
John Jones · John Jones · Supreme Court of New Zealand
“"Misuse of AI in legal proceedings has serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system,"”
lawnews.nz ↗
The file →
- John Jones was the litigant identified by the Supreme Court.
- He submitted authorities that appeared to be hallucinated by an AI application.
- The court warned the misuse could amount to contempt of court.
- Supreme Court of New Zealand; judges Ellen France, Stephen Kós, and Forrie Miller.
- February 16, 2026; the page says self-represented litigants must ensure authorities are genuine.
Warned
Gordon Rees’s attorney filed a bankruptcy brief with pervasive fabricated citations, prompting an order to show cause why sanctions should not issue.
Jackson Hosp. & Clinic Inc. · Gordon Rees
abovethelaw.com ↗
The file →
- Jackson Hosp. & Clinic Inc. involved Gordon Rees after a bankruptcy brief with fabricated citations.
- The court issued an order to show cause over pervasive inaccurate, misleading, and fabricated citations.
- The firm reimbursed fees and updated its AI policies with a cite-checking policy.
- Federal bankruptcy case; the page gives no judge name.
- The incident was described as happening last summer; the article links it to AI hallucination mishaps.
Caught, not sanctioned
An Alabama Supreme Court sanction targeted an attorney whose briefs cited nonexistent cases, and the court noted he repeated a fabricated citation after being warned.
unavailable · Alabama Supreme Court · AL
toppeconsulting.com ↗
The file →
- An attorney before the Alabama Supreme Court was sanctioned.
- His briefs contained citations to cases that did not exist.
- The page does not state the sanction amount.
- The court was the Alabama Supreme Court in Alabama.
- The opinion noted he repeated a fake citation after being told about one.
Fined
$15K
A Texas-based attorney filed briefs with citations to non-existent cases on three occasions and was recommended for a $15,000 sanction.
In Re: Rafael Ramirez · Rafael Ramirez · U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore · IN
theindianalawyer.com ↗
The file →
- In Re: Rafael Ramirez involved a Texas-based attorney licensed in Indiana.
- He filed briefs containing citations to non-existent cases on three separate occasions.
- U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore recommended a $15,000 sanction.
- Federal court matter in Indiana.
- Last February; the attorney said he relied on generative AI programs and the article says no sanctions have been pursued.
A firm filed two briefs with five false ChatGPT-generated citations, and a federal judge was considering sanctions and potential fines.
another firm · federal judge
courtroomsciences.com ↗
The file →
- Another firm faced possible sanctions for false citations.
- Attorneys filed two briefs containing five ChatGPT-generated false citations.
- The judge was considering sanctions and potential fines; no amount is given.
- A federal judge in federal court.
- The partner admitted using ChatGPT without verification and the firm apologized.
A Utah attorney filed false ChatGPT-generated citations, including Royer v. Nelson, and the state court of appeals sanctioned the attorney.
Royer v. Nelson · state court of appeals · UT
courtroomsciences.com ↗
The file →
- A Utah attorney was sanctioned in Royer v. Nelson.
- The filing contained a nonexistent case and other false citations generated by ChatGPT.
- The court imposed sanctions; the article does not state the amount.
- State court of appeals in Utah.
- 2025; opposing counsel said the material was unverifiable in any legal database.
Filing dismissed
In Couvrette v. Wisnovsky et all, the plaintiffs filed briefs using fabricated case law and quotations, and the court dismissed the claims with prejudice and imposed sanctions.
Couvrette v. Wisnovsky et all · Chenoweth Law Group LLC · U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · OR
chenowethlaw.com ↗
The file →
- Couvrette v. Wisnovsky et all involved plaintiffs represented in part by Chenoweth Law Group LLC.
- The briefing relied on fabricated case law and quotations, attributed to generative AI tools.
- The court dismissed the claims with prejudice and imposed sanctions.
- U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Oregon.
- The article says counsel blamed generative artificial intelligence tools; no specific tool is named.
Caught, not sanctioned
Defendants said plaintiff's attorneys cited six cases that appeared to be fabricated legal citations, but the page does not state any sanction order.
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD
govinfo.gov ↗
The file →
- Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD involved plaintiff's attorneys.
- Defendants identified six cited cases that appeared fabricated.
- The page does not report any sanction imposed.
- Federal case in an unspecified court.
- The page gives no date, AI tool, judge quote, or citation strings.
Caught, not sanctioned
$2K
A lawyer submitted case citations from a generative AI program in filings to a federal district court without checking their accuracy, and the lawyer was sanctioned.
unidentified lawyer · federal district court
reuters.com ↗
The file →
- An unnamed lawyer was sanctioned.
- The lawyer filed citations generated by a generative AI program without checking them.
- The court imposed a sanction, but the page gives no type or amount.
- The matter was in federal district court.
- The page gives no date or AI product name.
Fined
$31K
A California law firm submitted court filings with fake citations generated by AI and was sanctioned $31,000.
California law firm · CA
ceb.com ↗
The file →
- A California law firm was sanctioned in a recent case.
- It submitted court filings with fake citations generated by AI.
- The court imposed $31,000 in sanctions.
- The page gives no court or judge name.
- The page does not name the AI tool or the specific fake citations.
Caught, not sanctioned
An expert filed court declarations with AI-hallucinated citations and narrowly avoided sanction, but the page gives no order details.
Stanford Internet Observatory matter · an expert from the Stanford Internet Observatory
“The irony.”
ipwatchdog.com ↗
The file →
- Stanford Internet Observatory matter and an unnamed expert
- The expert submitted court declarations containing AI-hallucinated citations
- No sanction amount or formal sanction is described on the page
- Court and judge are not named on the page
- The page quotes the judge's written opinion as 'The irony.'
Referred to the bar
A Queensland solicitor was referred to the Legal Services Commission after a filing contained fake citations and may have been AI-generated.
Lyle v. Queensland Rural and Industrial Development Authority · A Queensland solicitor · District Court of Queensland
lawyerly.com.au ↗
The file →
- Lyle v. Queensland Rural and Industrial Development Authority; a Queensland solicitor
- A filing contained fake citations and may have been AI-generated
- Referred to the Legal Services Commission
- District Court of Queensland
- No AI tool or date was stated on the page
Caught, not sanctioned
A lawyer filed a brief containing AI-generated issues and case law, and the court addressed the problem in a costs ruling.
Re Gary Man Kin Ng · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Re Gary Man Kin Ng involved a brief containing AI-generated material.
- The page says the court grappled with issues arising from the lawyer's brief.
- It does not state a monetary sanction or other sanction imposed.
- The court was the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
- The page gives no date, named attorney, or named AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
In a Quebec Superior Court fraud judgment, the ruling allegedly used AI and cited nonexistent cases and testimony, and the defendants appealed.
Jocelyn Geoffroy decision (Quebec commercial fraud case) · Quebec Superior Court
theglobeandmail.com ↗
The file →
- Quebec Superior Court commercial fraud case involving Justice Jocelyn Geoffroy's decision
- Defendants alleged the ruling contained AI hallmarks, including citations to cases that do not exist
- No sanction is reported on the page; it describes an appeal and possible retrial
- Quebec Superior Court, Quebec, Canada
- Published 2026-03-30; the article says the allegation of AI use has not been confirmed
Fined
Lawyers filed submissions containing fictitious cases and authorities, and the High Court sanctioned them and ordered personal costs.
Ng Yat Chun v. Public Prosecutor · High Court of Singapore
techandjustice.bsg.ox.ac.uk ↗
The file →
- Ng Yat Chun v. Public Prosecutor; lawyers were sanctioned
- Submissions used AI and included fictitious cases and authorities
- The court ordered personal costs against the lawyers
- High Court of Singapore, Singapore
- The page says this was one of at least two civil cases in Singapore
Referred to the bar
A pupil barrister filed a brief with five fake citations and a false statute text, and a solicitor filed an application with 18 made-up citations; Dame Sharp referred both to regulators.
In June 2025 two separate cases before the English High Court · English High Court
jmc-legal.com ↗
The file →
- English High Court cases involving a pupil barrister and a solicitor
- They filed hallucinated citations and a wrong statute text in court papers
- Both were referred to their regulators by Dame Sharp
- English High Court, England
- June 2025; the article says the solicitor used "publicly available artificial intelligence tools"
Steven A. Schwartz filed a brief with AI-fabricated cases and quotations, and the court sanctioned the filing.
In re Schwartz · Steven A. Schwartz · federal court
prinz-lawfirm.com ↗
The file →
- In re Schwartz involved Steven A. Schwartz and AI-fabricated citations.
- He submitted a brief with made-up cases and quotations.
- The court sanctioned the filing with a monetary fine.
- The page says courts in Wyoming, California, Texas, and Pennsylvania have sanctioned similar conduct.
- It identifies ChatGPT as one of the AI tools that can hallucinate citations.
Fined
A New York attorney and Pennsylvania associated counsel were sanctioned for AI-related filing misconduct.
Lifetime Well, LLC v. IBSPOT.COM Inc. · A New York attorney and the Pennsylvania associated counsel
jlellis.net ↗
The file →
- Lifetime Well, LLC v. IBSPOT.COM Inc.; two lawyers were sanctioned
- The page says they were sanctioned for using AI without verification
- The sanction amount is not stated
- The page names New York and Pennsylvania but not the court
- No AI tool, date, or judge quote is provided
Referred to the bar
A licensed attorney's similar AI misuse would have ended in sanctions, but the attorney had already been referred to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
In re R. L. v. Anezka · Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District · IL
tresslerllp.com ↗
The file →
- In re R. L. v. Anezka was cited as another AI-citation incident.
- The article says similar conduct by a licensed attorney would have ended in sanctions.
- The attorney had already been referred to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
- Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District; state court in Illinois.
- The page gives no exact sanction date; it says the referral had already happened.
Warned
A litigant in person used AI in a skeleton argument with erroneous citations; the Recorder rejected the misleading references and considered publication and naming.
Re A, B, C, D [2026] EWFC 71 · [LIP] · Family Court
“All parties – represented and unrepresented – owe a duty to the court to ensure that cases cited in legal argument are genuine and provide authority for the proposition advanced.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- Re A, B, C, D [2026] EWFC 71 and [LIP]
- Used an AI tool to prepare a skeleton argument containing erroneous citations
- No monetary sanction; the Recorder considered publication and naming
- Family Court, England and Wales
- Recorder said parties owe a duty to ensure cited cases are genuine
Caught, not sanctioned
Sethi filed a notice of errata identifying hallucinated citations but did not disclose that the prior citations were hallucinations, and the court treated it as inadequate disclosure.
Contreras Pelayo v. Bondi · Mike Singh Sethi · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
“This is not sufficient disclosure.”
reason.com ↗
The file →
- Contreras Pelayo v. Bondi; attorney Mike Singh Sethi filed the errata notice.
- He sought to replace hallucinated citations without saying the earlier cases did not exist.
- No separate sanction is stated on the page for this incident.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The page says the motion failed to disclose that the earlier citations were hallucinations.
Caught, not sanctioned
Thomas Gregory Sylvester filed a brief with AI-fabricated legal citations, and the Fifth Circuit discussed the incident and reaffirmed existing rules govern AI misuse.
In re: Thomas Gregory Sylvester · Thomas Gregory Sylvester · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
jdsupra.com ↗
The file →
- In re: Thomas Gregory Sylvester; Thomas Gregory Sylvester
- He filed a brief containing AI-fabricated legal citations
- No sanction amount is stated; the court said existing rules already govern AI misuse
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- The article says the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed no bespoke AI rule is needed
Caught, not sanctioned
GLG Law LLC admitted its brief used generative AI and contained hallucinated citations; the tenant asked the Connecticut Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal and sanction the plaintiff.
Middletown landlord-tenant dispute · GLG Law LLC · Connecticut Supreme Court · CT
ctinsider.com ↗
The file →
- GLG Law LLC in a Middletown landlord-tenant appeal was accused of AI-made citations
- The firm said generative AI helped organize, format and review the brief
- The brief asked for dismissal and sanctions, but no sanction had yet issued
- Connecticut Supreme Court, Hartford, Connecticut
- March 3, 2026; the firm said counsel failed to notice AI had made changes before filing
Caught, not sanctioned
A Victorian judge probed Ahmed Dib’s firm after a solicitor filed documents with made-up quotes, non-existent cases and apparent AI hallucinations.
Ahmed Dib’s firm probe · Ahmed Dib · Victorian judge · VIC
afr.com ↗
The file →
- Ahmed Dib’s firm was probed over the filing.
- A solicitor allegedly laid documents before the court with made-up quotes and non-existent cases.
- The article reports a judicial probe, not a stated sanction.
- The court was in Victoria, Australia.
- Published Mar. 22, 2026; the piece says the documents showed extensive artificial intelligence hallucinations.
Caught, not sanctioned
Counsel for consumers said a generative AI tool added a hallucinated citation to a brief, which a Boies Schiller associate missed while checking citations.
Amazon supplement labeling lawsuit · Boies Schiller · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · WA
law360.com ↗
The file →
- Amazon supplement labeling lawsuit against Amazon.com Inc.; Boies Schiller was involved.
- A generative AI tool used to 'harmonize' drafts introduced an AI-hallucinated citation.
- No sanction is stated on the page; the issue was being explained to the court.
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
- March 19, 2026 article; a fifth-year Boies Schiller associate missed the error.
Fined
$500
Judge Janet C. Hall fined David Stitch $500 after he filed a spurious, computer-generated brief with hallucinated legal citations.
David Stitch · David Stitch · U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · CT
“The court understands that, in issuing this order, it does so in a proverbial new frontier as society begins to grapple with both the power and potential danger of this technology,” Hall wrote at the time.”
courant.com ↗
The file →
- David Stitch was fined by Judge Janet C. Hall for a computer-generated brief.
- The brief contained spurious, hallucinated citations in a wage case.
- The sanction was a $500 monetary fine.
- U.S. District Court, New Haven, Connecticut.
- The article says this happened last year; Hall noted courts were confronting 'hallucinated' citations in court papers.
Referred to the bar
A federal court in Alabama disqualified offending attorneys from the case and referred them to bar regulators.
Unnamed Alabama matter · Offending attorneys · Federal court in Alabama · AL
smithstephen.com ↗
The file →
- Unnamed Alabama matter; offending attorneys
- The court decided fines were not enough and disqualified them
- Also referred them to bar regulators
- Federal court in Alabama
- Date not given; no judge name or AI tool is named
Caught, not sanctioned
Three Morgan & Morgan lawyers were sanctioned after eight of nine cited cases in their motions turned out to be fake.
Unnamed Morgan & Morgan matter · Morgan & Morgan
smithstephen.com ↗
The file →
- Unnamed Morgan & Morgan matter; Morgan & Morgan lawyers
- Eight of nine cited cases were completely fake
- The article says they were sanctioned; no amount is stated here
- Court not named on the page
- 2025; no judge name or AI tool is given
Steven Schwartz was sanctioned after filing a brief with six AI-generated case citations that were completely fabricated.
Steven Schwartz · Steven Schwartz · S.D.N.Y. · NY
law360.com ↗
The file →
- Steven Schwartz was sanctioned in a 2023 New York case.
- He submitted a brief with six AI-generated case citations.
- The page says the citations were completely fabricated.
- The court imposed sanctions in federal court in the Southern District of New York.
- The page does not name the AI tool or give the sanction amount.
Fined
$66K
Arnold Porter won a ruling for more than $66,000 in attorneys’ fees after the plaintiff filed duplicative motions and fake case citations using AI.
ICANN and Verisign Inc. v. [Chinese plaintiff] · Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“bad faith”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer obtained the fee award in the ICANN/Verisign dispute.
- The plaintiff repeatedly filed AI-generated fake case citations and duplicative motions.
- The court awarded more than $66,000 in attorneys’ fees.
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, California.
- December; the judge said the plaintiff kept filing fake citations even after apologizing.
Fined
$1K
The Tenth Circuit fined a Maryland attorney $1,000 and referred the matter after a brief cited nonexistent cases generated with AI.
Maryland attorney referred to disciplinary authorities by the Tenth Circuit · US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
carry.com ↗
The file →
- A Maryland attorney was sanctioned by the Tenth Circuit.
- She acknowledged using generative AI to prepare a brief with nonexistent cases.
- The court imposed a $1,000 fine and referred the matter to disciplinary authorities.
- US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, federal.
- March 23, 2026 article; the page does not name the AI tool used.
Referred to the bar
Mr Rasheed was found to have used AI-generated citations in a separate case and was referred to the SRA.
R (Munir) v SSHD · Mr Rasheed · not stated
“Mr Rasheed demonstrated a worrying lack of understanding of the extent to which AI is available in the modern world”
keoghs.co.uk ↗
The file →
- R (Munir) v SSHD involved Mr Rasheed, the solicitor cited on the page.
- The page says he had used AI-generated citations in that separate case.
- He was referred to the SRA as a result.
- The court/judge details for Munir are not stated on this page.
- The page quotes the tribunal/judge saying he showed a worrying lack of understanding of AI.
Fined
$12K
The plaintiffs filed pleadings with fabricated citations and misquoted authorities, and the court struck the filings and ordered attorney fees.
Mattox v. Product Innovations Research USA · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma · OK
bestlawfirms.com ↗
The file →
- Mattox v. Product Innovations Research USA involved the plaintiffs
- Their pleadings contained fabricated citations and references to nonexistent cases
- The court struck the filings and ordered more than $11,700 in attorney fees
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
- Judge Timothy DeGiusti handled the case in Oklahoma
Fined
The self-represented respondent used generative AI in her written argument and cited non-existent cases; the court awarded a small costs award to the claimant.
J.R.V. v. N.L.V. · British Columbia Supreme Court
watsongoepel.com ↗
The file →
- J.R.V. v. N.L.V. involved a self-represented respondent.
- She used generative AI to prepare her written argument.
- It produced citations to non-existent cases.
- The court made a small costs award payable to the claimant.
- 2025 BCSC 1137; the respondent apologized and said she did not know AI could generate fake citations.
Fined
$2K
An attorney filed a brief citing multiple non-existent cases, and the court imposed a $2,500 sanction.
Texas AI hallucination case · Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas · TX
“violated basic duties of competence and candor as contemplated by the rules governing professional conduct.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Texas AI hallucination case involving an unnamed attorney
- The lawyer filed a brief with multiple non-existent cases
- The court imposed a $2,500 sanction
- Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, Texas
- The article says the judge found violations of competence and candor
Fined
Nicholas L. Palazzo filed briefs with erroneous and apparently fabricated citations, and the Pennsylvania federal court sanctioned him.
Patricia Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. and BJ’s Wholesale Club · Nicholas L. Palazzo of Defino Law Associates · PA
legal.io ↗
The file →
- Patricia Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. and BJ’s Wholesale Club
- Nicholas L. Palazzo submitted briefs with erroneous and apparently fabricated citations
- The court sanctioned him
- Pennsylvania federal court
- The page says the cited cases either did not exist or had major factual errors
Warned
An attorney filed a brief with four possibly AI-generated fake case citations, and Judge Nancy Kennedy ordered counsel to prove the cases existed within 10 days.
Lauren Rochon-Eidsvig and Heidi Rochon Hafer v. JGB Collateral, LLC · Dallas Court of Appeals · TX
legal.io ↗
The file →
- Lauren Rochon-Eidsvig and Heidi Rochon Hafer v. JGB Collateral, LLC
- A Texas brief included four cases the court and opposing counsel could not locate
- Judge Kennedy ordered counsel to verify the cases within 10 days
- Dallas Court of Appeals, Texas
- May 2024 brief; reported as a scrutiny/order rather than a money sanction
Warned
The Court of Appeal said parts of the submissions appeared to rely on non-existent authorities and warned AI outputs must be verified.
Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609 · New Zealand Court of Appeal
thelawyers.nz ↗
The file →
- Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609; submissions were at issue
- Parts of the submissions appeared to rely on non-existent authorities
- The court warned that AI outputs must be verified before filing
- New Zealand Court of Appeal
- 16 October 2025; no AI tool was named
Reprimanded
A lawyer filed AI-generated citations with real cases but invented quotes inside them, and the Sixth Circuit reprimanded the lawyer and vacated the result.
United States v. Johnson-Ferris · Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
broadbandbreakfast.com ↗
The file →
- United States v. Johnson-Ferris; lawyer unnamed
- AI tool cited real cases but invented quotes inside them
- Sixth Circuit reprimanded the lawyer and vacated the result
- Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Date not stated; the court appointed new counsel for the defendant
Fined
$10K
A pro se litigant filed AI-generated briefs with hallucinated cases, quotes, and statements of law, and the court imposed Rule 11 sanctions.
Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois · Chinedu Obi · District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · IL
“Plaintiff’s motion is riddled with AI hallucinations, made up cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact.”
Cases that don't exist
- Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006)
- Andrade v. Arby Concessions, 88 F.4th 1014, 1018 (7th Cir. 2023)
fedcivilprocedure.com ↗
The file →
- Chinedu Obi in Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois
- He generated each brief using AI and filed hallucinated cases, quotes, and legal statements
- Rule 11 sanctions totaling $9,750
- Northern District of Illinois, federal court in Illinois
- The court said the filings contained repeated, ongoing hallucinations and wasted time locating nonexistent cases
Fined
$8K
An attorney filed a legal brief with AI-generated fabrications, and the Oregon Court of Appeals imposed an $8,000 sanction.
Oregon Court of Appeals sanctions attorney for AI-generated fabrications in legal brief · Oregon Court of Appeals · OR
bizjournals.com ↗
The file →
- An attorney was sanctioned in Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The brief contained AI-generated fabrications in legal citations.
- The court imposed an $8,000 monetary sanction.
- The matter was before the Oregon Court of Appeals in Oregon.
- The page says it was the first such penalty in the state.
Fined
A claimant filed a petition with nonexistent precedents allegedly generated by AI, and the Supreme Federal Court found bad faith and ordered double court fees plus referral to the bar.
Supreme Federal Court Claim No 78,890 · Supreme Federal Court
ibanet.org ↗
The file →
- Supreme Federal Court Claim No 78,890 involved a claimant whose petition cited nonexistent precedents.
- The petition was found to contain AI-generated nonexistent precedents.
- The court ordered double court fees and reported the matter to the Brazilian Bar Association.
- Supreme Federal Court, Brazil.
- The page says the improper use of AI in court by inventing binding precedents was bad faith.
Caught, not sanctioned
OpenCase
Counsel filed a brief with nonexistent authorities and fake quotations, and the court discharged the show-cause order without imposing sanctions.
Gamez v. County of Fresno · Kevin Little · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California · CA
“the court accepted his explanation that he believed the AI tool had anti-hallucination protection”
law360.com ↗
The file →
- Gamez v. County of Fresno; counsel faced possible sanctions
- Brief contained nonexistent authorities, fabricated quotations, and unsupported legal representations
- No sanctions imposed; show-cause order discharged
- Eastern District of California
- 2026; court accepted counsel's explanation that he thought the AI tool had anti-hallucination protection
Caught, not sanctioned
A judge filed a brief with false citations generated by AI and faced discipline, but the page does not state a sanction order.
Disciplinary Counsel v. Rudduck · Rudduck
supremecourt.ohio.gov ↗
The file →
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Rudduck
- A brief contained false citations generated by AI.
- The page does not report a sanction order.
- Court and location are not stated on the page.
- The article only begins discussing the judicial-conduct rule and AI use.
Caught, not sanctioned
Romeyn faced State Bar discipline after a personal injury filing allegedly used AI and contained nonexistent and irrelevant citations.
Steven Thomas Romeyn · Steven Thomas Romeyn · State Bar Court · CA
aol.com ↗
The file →
- Steven Thomas Romeyn was accused by the State Bar over a personal injury case.
- He allegedly submitted irrelevant and nonexistent citations in an Orange County Superior Court filing.
- The State Bar Court had not yet ruled, so no sanction had been imposed on this page.
- The matter was in Orange County Superior Court in California.
- He later disclosed using AI and said he had not verified every citation before filing.
The Fifth Circuit sanctioned an Arkansas lawyer for filing an AI-generated brief with 21 fictional case citations and other errors.
Arkansas lawyer sanctioned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
bestlawfirms.com ↗
The file →
- An Arkansas lawyer was sanctioned by the Fifth Circuit.
- The lawyer filed an AI-generated brief containing 21 fictional case citations and other errors.
- The sanction type was monetary fine, but the page gives no amount.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; federal appellate court.
- No incident date is given; the page quotes the court on law-and-technology concerns.
Referred to the bar
$8K
Senior Judge Walter H. Rice imposed a collective $7,500 sanction, found two attorneys in contempt, and referred them to disciplinary counsel over AI hallucinations.
Southern District of Ohio AI-hallucinations matter · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio · OH
“the most egregious violations of Rule 11”
compliancehub.wiki ↗
The file →
- Two attorneys were sanctioned in the Southern District of Ohio.
- They were found in contempt for AI hallucinations in filings.
- The court imposed a collective $7,500 sanction and referred them to disciplinary counsel.
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio; Senior Judge Walter H. Rice.
- Q1 2026; Rice made a disciplinary referral to the Ohio Supreme Court’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Fined
A federal judge fined Lenden Webb for failing to supervise another lawyer at his firm who filed court papers containing AI-fabricated citations.
Lenden Webb · Lenden Webb · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Lenden Webb was sanctioned.
- Another lawyer at Webb’s firm filed papers with AI-fabricated citations.
- Webb was fined for failing to supervise that lawyer.
- The case was in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The article says the underlying filing contained fabricated citations, but it does not name the AI tool or the amount.
Referred to the bar
Counsel submitted an AI-generated brief with fabricated citations, and the Minnesota Tax Court referred counsel to disciplinary authorities.
Delano Crossing v. Wright · Minnesota Tax Court · MN
news.bloombergtax.com ↗
The file →
- Delano Crossing v. Wright was named as a specific incident.
- Counsel submitted an AI-generated brief with fabricated citations.
- The court referred counsel to disciplinary authorities.
- The court was the Minnesota Tax Court.
- The page says the brief was AI-generated but names no tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
The Tax Court struck a pretrial memorandum that relied on fabricated cases.
Thomas v. Commissioner · U.S. Tax Court
news.bloombergtax.com ↗
The file →
- Thomas v. Commissioner was identified as a real tax-court incident.
- A pretrial memorandum relied on fabricated cases.
- The Tax Court struck the memorandum.
- The court was the U.S. Tax Court.
- The page does not name the AI tool or give a sanction amount.
Fined
$5K
A self-represented plaintiff filed briefs generated using AI with fictitious cases, quotes, and law, and Judge Virginia Kendall struck the motion and sanctioned her $5,000.
Obi v. Cook County · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · IL
“"Carelessness, good faith, or ignorance are not an excuse for submitting materials that do not comply with Rule 11."”
reason.com ↗
The file →
- Obi v. Cook County involved a self-represented plaintiff whose AI-generated filings were sanctioned.
- She filed a motion and replies riddled with fictitious cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact.
- Judge Virginia Kendall struck the motion and imposed a $5,000 Rule 11 sanction.
- The court was the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The page says her prior filing had at least 17 fake cases and that she had exhausted the court's leniency.
Two New York lawyers submitted a brief with fake ChatGPT-generated cases, and a U.S. judge imposed sanctions.
In re unspecified New York lawyers · two New York lawyers · U.S. District Court · NY
quora.com ↗
The file →
- Two New York lawyers were sanctioned.
- They submitted a legal brief with fake ChatGPT cases.
- The court imposed sanctions, but the amount is not stated.
- A U.S. District Court in New York handled the matter.
- The article says the cases were ChatGPT-generated.
Caught, not sanctioned
Claude
A Latham & Watkins lawyer defending Anthropic cited a non-existent article, and the mistake was attributed to Claude.
Latham & Watkins lawyer · Latham & Watkins
businessinsider.com ↗
The file →
- A Latham & Watkins lawyer was named in the article.
- The lawyer cited an article that does not exist.
- No sanctions are described for this incident on the page.
- The AI tool identified was Claude.
- The page says this happened last year in Anthropic's copyright case.
Caught, not sanctioned
The complainant admitted his WRC complaint was generated using AI and not fully reviewed, and the adjudicator gave his evidence reduced weight without imposing a sanction.
Ferko v. Beyond Reach Limited · Workplace Relations Commission
““While assistance in preparing complaints is not improper, a complainant remains responsible for the accuracy of allegations made on his behalf.””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- Ferko v. Beyond Reach Limited before the Workplace Relations Commission.
- The complaint was prepared by his sister using AI and was not fully verified.
- The adjudicator reduced the weight of his evidence; no sanction was stated.
- Workplace Relations Commission, Ireland.
- Date not given; the decision emphasized responsibility for accuracy.
Caught, not sanctioned
A respondent said the complainant’s prehearing documents were generated by AI and were inadmissible; the adjudicator noted the materials’ poor quality but imposed no sanction.
Goncalves v. Valshan Unlimited · Workplace Relations Commission
““Unfortunately, for me at least, the tangential scattergun, smorgasbord approaches and references coupled with euphemisms formed outside of Europe approaches of this tool were a poor second to human oversight, I have come to expect and anticipate in actual statement and representation during a case.””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- Goncalves v. Valshan Unlimited before the Workplace Relations Commission.
- AI was alleged in prehearing documents; the adjudicator discussed their quality.
- No sanction was imposed in the excerpt.
- Workplace Relations Commission, Ireland.
- Date not given; the adjudicator criticized the tool’s output and human oversight.
Fined
$2K
A brief was found to contain phony citations and made-up judicial opinions, and the court ordered a $2,500 payment.
Nate Raymond, US Appeals Court Orders Lawyer to Pay $2,500 over AI Hallucinations in Brief · U.S. appeals court
dc.suffolk.edu ↗
The file →
- A lawyer was sanctioned in a federal appeals-court matter.
- The brief was described as full of phony citations and made-up judicial opinions.
- The court ordered a $2,500 payment.
- The venue was a U.S. appeals court.
- The page gives only the Reuters item title and no named attorney, judge, or AI tool.
An attorney filed a pleading citing at least six nonexistent cases, and Judge Martínez fined him $1,500 and ordered ethics training and bar reporting.
Unnamed New Mexico attorney · unnamed New Mexico attorney · U.S. Magistrate Judge Damian Martínez · NM
“The six cases were fake and likely the handiwork of a ChatGPT or similar artificial intelligence (AI) program’s hallucinations,”
govtech.com ↗
The file →
- An unnamed New Mexico attorney was sanctioned for fake citations.
- He filed a pleading with at least six nonexistent cases.
- Judge Martínez fined him $1,500 and required bar reporting and AI ethics training.
- U.S. Magistrate Judge Damian Martínez, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
- Last year; the article says the fake cases were likely from ChatGPT or a similar AI program.
A lawyer’s suspected AI use led to fake cases being cited before the tribunal, and the tribunal warned that uploading confidential client documents to ChatGPT breached privilege.
Munir v. Secretary of State for the Home Department · Immigration and Asylum Chamber
blakes.com ↗
The file →
- Munir v. Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a lawyer suspected of using AI-generated fake cases.
- The lawyer said he did not know how the fake cases appeared in his submissions.
- The tribunal warned that uploading confidential client documents into an open-source AI tool breaches client confidentiality and waives privilege.
- Immigration and Asylum Chamber (U.K.).
- The page says the lawyer admitted putting client letters and other confidential material in ChatGPT.
Filing dismissed
$30K
Two attorneys received $30,000 in combined sanctions and their case was dismissed for submitting more than two dozen fake case citations.
6th Circuit case · 6th Circuit
“pervasive misconduct”
theaiconsultingnetwork.com ↗
The file →
- Two attorneys were sanctioned in the 6th Circuit
- They submitted more than two dozen fake case citations
- The court dismissed the case and imposed $30,000 in combined sanctions
- 6th Circuit, federal court
- Date not stated; the court cited pervasive misconduct
Referred to the bar
A lawyer filed pleadings with fabricated quotations and misrepresented holdings, then filed an even worse reconsideration motion before the court revoked pro hac vice admission.
In re Jackson Hospital & Clinic · Alabama Bankruptcy Court · AL
wardandsmith.com ↗
The file →
- In re Jackson Hospital & Clinic; attorney and her firm
- Pleadings and a reconsideration motion contained hallucinated citations and quotes
- Pro hac vice admission was revoked; firm paid over $55,000 in opposing counsel fees
- Alabama bankruptcy court
- Date not given; the court ordered a show-cause hearing after the withdrawn reconsideration motion
Debtor’s counsel filed a brief with AI-generated fabricated citations and nonexistent quotations, and the bankruptcy court sanctioned counsel and his firm.
In re Marla C. Martin · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois · IL
““no lawyer should be using … a generative AI product to perform research without verifying results. Period.””
duanemorris.com ↗
The file →
- Marla Martin bankruptcy case; debtor’s counsel and his law firm were sanctioned
- Counsel filed a brief with fabricated citations and nonexistent quotations generated by AI
- The court imposed a $5,500 penalty and required AI-training attendance
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Illinois
- November 7, 2025 article; the court called the sanction "modest" and warned future violators
Caught, not sanctioned
GLG Law LLC filed a brief with AI-generated fabricated citations, and the Connecticut Supreme Court was considering sanctions and referral.
GLG Law LLC matter · GLG Law LLC · Connecticut Supreme Court · CT
legalaigovernance.com ↗
The file →
- GLG Law LLC was identified as having filed the brief.
- The brief in a landlord-tenant eviction matter contained fabricated citations generated by AI.
- The Supreme Court was considering referral, monetary sanctions, and future certification requirements.
- Connecticut Supreme Court, Connecticut.
- As of March 2026, the final outcome was not confirmed.
Two New Orleans law department attorneys filed a motion with nine AI-generated fake case citations, and Judge Carl Barbier sanctioned them.
Jalen Harris and James Roquemore · Assistant City Attorney Jalen Harris; Deputy City Attorney James Roquemore · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · LA
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
- Assistant City Attorney Jalen Harris and Deputy City Attorney James Roquemore were sanctioned in federal court.
- They filed a January 2026 motion containing nine made-up case citations generated by AI.
- Judge Carl Barbier ordered Harris to pay $250 and Roquemore $1,000.
- The case was in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans.
- Harris said he used ChatGPT to speed research and did not verify the AI-generated cases.
Fined
$96K
An Oregon judge found Stephen Brigandi at fault for submitting three documents with 23 hallucinated AI-generated citations and imposed sanctions.
Stephen Brigandi · Stephen Brigandi · Oregon state court · OR
sandiegouniontribune.com ↗
The file →
- Stephen Brigandi was sanctioned in Oregon state court.
- He submitted three documents containing 23 hallucinated AI-generated citations.
- The court imposed $96,000 in sanctions.
- The judge was an Oregon judge; the article says the matter was in Oregon.
- The page does not name the AI tool or quote the judge.
Fined
Wright filed briefs with fake cases and fabricated quotations in a discrimination suit against the Phoenix Suns, and Judge Murray Snow ordered her to pay some attorneys’ fees and take ethics training.
Phoenix Suns lawsuit · Sheree Wright · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · AZ
“U.S. District Judge Murray Snow called Wright’s explanation a “convoluted tale.””
azfamily.com ↗
The file →
- Phoenix Suns discrimination lawsuit against Sheree Wright
- Wright filed legal briefs with AI hallucinations, including fake cases and quotations
- Judge ordered her to cover some attorneys’ fees and complete AI ethics training
- U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona; federal court in Arizona
- Date not stated; ruling was forwarded to the Arizona State Bar and district and magistrate judges in Arizona
Fined
$5K
A Camden County attorney filed a motion with AI-generated fake citations and was ordered to pay $5,000 in sanctions.
Unnamed Camden County attorney sanction · Unnamed Camden County attorney · Camden County court · NJ
nj.com ↗
The file →
- Unnamed Camden County attorney was sanctioned in a case described on the page.
- The attorney used artificial intelligence to file a motion with fake citations.
- The court ordered $5,000 in sanctions.
- The matter was in Camden County, New Jersey.
- The page gives no date, judge name, or AI tool.
Referred to the bar
A legal practitioner filed court submissions with AI-generated nonexistent citations, and the court referred the matter to the South Australian Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner.
Pasuengos v. Minister for Immigration
advocateprakhar.com ↗
The file →
- Pasuengos v. Minister for Immigration involved a legal practitioner.
- Court submissions contained AI-hallucinated case citations that did not exist.
- The court referred the practitioner to the Conduct Commissioner.
- Australian federal court.
- Feb. 2026; the page says the referral made it a significant AI-hallucination disciplinary case.
Fined
A pro se plaintiff filed fictitious AI citations and then gave a false explanation; the court sanctioned her for the Rule 11 breach.
Zhang v. Driscoll · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
“simply not credible”
advocateprakhar.com ↗
The file →
- Zhang v. Driscoll involved a pro se plaintiff in N.D. Cal.
- She filed fictitious case citations and blamed 'editing errors.'
- The court sanctioned her for a Rule 11 violation.
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- Jan. 2026; the court found her explanation 'simply not credible.'
Warned
A lawyer filed submissions with inaccurate, apparently AI-generated authorities that had not been independently verified; the Commission warned of disciplinary or procedural consequences.
Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education) · Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
judiciary.sc ↗
The file →
- Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education); a lawyer’s submissions before the Commission
- Submissions contained inaccurate and apparently AI-generated legal authorities and propositions
- The Commission warned that AI use can lead to disciplinary or procedural consequences
- Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, Queensland
- 2025; the decision stressed counsel remain personally responsible for all authorities
Referred to the bar
A lawyer used AI to generate court submissions with fake case citations, lost the case, and was referred to the Law Society for discipline.
Avinash Singh's unnamed submission · Avinash Singh · not stated
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
- Avinash Singh is the lawyer described on the page.
- He used AI to generate submissions containing case citations that did not exist.
- He lost the case and was referred to the Law Society for professional disciplinary proceedings.
- The court/jurisdiction is not stated on the page.
- The page does not name the AI tool or give the order date.
Fined
$6K
A complainant’s final written submissions cited non-existent cases, and the Employment Relations Authority ordered further costs against the complainant.
Wellington physiotherapy company grievance case · Employment Relations Authority
newsroom.co.nz ↗
The file →
- The incident arose in a personal grievance case against a Wellington physiotherapy company.
- Despite reminders, the final submissions cited cases that did not exist.
- The complainant was ordered to pay $6500 to the business.
- Court: Employment Relations Authority in Wellington, New Zealand.
- Date not stated; the article describes it as a case being handled by the Authority.
Filing dismissed
A self-represented filer cited non-existent cases, and the Supreme Court dismissed the case after calling the authorities hallucinations of a generative AI application.
Liyun Chen v Goodmore Investments and Tawa Trade Finance · Supreme Court of New Zealand
““Many of Ms Chen’s authorities are irrelevant or do not exist – in either case appearing to be hallucinations of a generative artificial intelligence application.””
newsroom.co.nz ↗
The file →
- Liyun Chen brought the case against Goodmore Investments and Tawa Trade Finance.
- Chen’s filings cited cases that did not exist and misrepresented others.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the case.
- Court: Supreme Court of New Zealand; justices Dame Ellen France, Sir Stephen Kós and Forrest Miller.
- Date not stated; the page says the court fired off its most recent warning earlier this month.
Reprimanded
A Third Circuit panel reprimanded and sharply criticized a lawyer for failing to verify citations that turned out to be AI hallucinations.
Stevens & Lee · Stevens & Lee · Third Circuit
jdsupra.com ↗
The file →
- Stevens & Lee was the firm involved.
- A lawyer submitted citations that were later described as AI hallucinations.
- The panel reprimanded and sharply criticized the lawyer.
- The court was the Third Circuit in federal court.
- The article gives no date or named AI tool.
Referred to the bar
The page mentions immigration solicitors facing an SRA probe after fake AI-generated case citations were used.
Immigration solicitors to face SRA probe over fake AI-generated case citations
lawgazette.co.uk ↗
The file →
- Immigration solicitors matter mentioned by title
- Fake AI-generated case citations were submitted
- The page says they face an SRA probe
- No sanction amount is stated on the page
- Published 2026-05-12; the article gives no case caption or named lawyer
Warned
The page mentions a family-proceedings case in which a barrister misled the court with AI-generated fake cases and was ordered named.
Judge orders naming of barrister who misled court using AI-generated fake cases in family proceedings
lawgazette.co.uk ↗
The file →
- Family proceedings matter involving a barrister
- AI-generated fake cases were presented to the court
- The court ordered the barrister be named
- No sanction amount is stated on the page
- Published 2026-05-12; the article gives no judge name or exact order date
Two New York lawyers filed a brief with six fake ChatGPT-created case citations and were fined $5,000.
Two New York lawyers sanction incident · two New York lawyers · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
cnbc.com ↗
The file →
- Two New York lawyers were the sanctioned attorneys.
- They submitted a legal brief with six fake case citations created by ChatGPT.
- The court fined them $5,000.
- The matter was in federal court in New York.
- The page says this happened in 2023, and the AI tool was ChatGPT.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
Seth used ChatGPT under time pressure and did not check a single citation before filing.
Seth
davidkemp.ai ↗
The file →
- Seth was named as one of the Q1 sanctions cases on the page.
- The filing relied on ChatGPT and contained unchecked citations.
- The article gives no specific sanction order details for this incident.
- The page ties the mistake to time pressure and failure to verify.
- This is presented as a lawyer practice failure rather than a tool failure.
Caught, not sanctioned
Brigandi filed briefs containing 15 nonexistent cases and 8 fabricated quotations, even after opposing counsel flagged the earlier errors.
Brigandi
davidkemp.ai ↗
The file →
- Brigandi was one of the Q1 sanctions cases mentioned on the page.
- The briefs contained 15 nonexistent cases and 8 fabricated quotations.
- The page does not state the sanction imposed here.
- No court, judge, or AI tool is named for this incident.
- The article says opposing counsel flagged the earlier errors before the later filing.
Caught, not sanctioned
A representative pasted chatbot-supplied fake Supreme Court and Madras High Court citations into the tribunal record; the order was recalled within a week.
Buckeye Trust matter · Bengaluru bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
blog.ipleaders.in ↗
The file →
- Buckeye Trust matter; the tax department’s representative
- Pasted chatbot-supplied authorities that did not exist
- Order was recalled within a week; no monetary sanction stated
- Bengaluru bench, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
- Late 2024; a generative chatbot was used for 'supporting authorities'
Cohn submitted a filing with AI-fabricated citations and faced sanctions for the false authorities.
In re: Thomas M. Cohn · Thomas M. Cohn · U.S. Bankruptcy Court
edrm.net ↗
The file →
- In re: Thomas M. Cohn; Thomas M. Cohn was sanctioned
- He submitted a filing with AI-fabricated citations
- Monetary sanction amount not stated
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court
- The page says the false citations came from ChatGPT
Caught, not sanctioned
$6K
In children proceedings, a father filed applications citing many non-existent cases and the matter was referred upwards.
Father's children proceedings matter · Family Court
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
- Father's children proceedings matter; the father was involved
- The father cited many cases that simply were not real
- The father was ordered to pay £5,900 in costs and the matter was referred upwards
- Family Court, Midlands
- Date not stated; the article says a judge noticed many cited cases were not real
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
Plaintiffs' attorneys filed AI-generated bogus case law, and the court issued an order to show cause why they should not be sanctioned.
Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiffs' Attorneys Should Not Be Sanctioned · United States District Court for the District of Wyoming · WY
lib.law.uw.edu ↗
The file →
- Plaintiffs' attorneys in the District of Wyoming
- They submitted bogus case law created by ChatGPT
- The court issued an order to show cause, with sanctions threatened
- United States District Court for the District of Wyoming
- 2025; the page links this to a 2025 order and names Judge Kelly H. Rankin
Referred to the bar
False AI-generated case citations were submitted in an appeal; the judge referred two solicitors to their regulator.
AML Legal appeal matter · Mahmood Hussain · Circuit judge sitting in Walsall
“Lawyers who cite fictitious cases must face serious consequences,”
rozenberg.substack.com ↗
The file →
- Mahmood Hussain of AML Legal was implicated in the appeal matter.
- Documents citing false judgments were prepared with help from a paralegal.
- The judge referred two solicitors to their regulator.
- Circuit judge sitting in Walsall, England.
- Published May 18, 2026; Judge Grimshaw urged a robust approach under Ayinde.
Reprimanded
The Georgia Supreme Court disciplined a prosecutor after finding her AI use led to fabricated and misleading case citations in a murder case.
California court reverses ruling that relied on made-up ... · Georgia Supreme Court · GA
reuters.com ↗
The file →
- A prosecutor was disciplined in a murder case.
- Her AI use led to fabricated and misleading case citations.
- The sanction was a reprimand.
- The court was the Georgia Supreme Court in Georgia.
- The article says this happened this month; no AI tool or quoted language is given.
Warned
Three lawyers filed fabricated citations, and the court issued an order to show cause related to the fabrications.
Landberg v. City of New York, 2025-02380 · New York court · NY
jlellis.net ↗
The file →
- Landberg v. City of New York, 2025-02380 involved three lawyers in New York.
- One lawyer used fabricated citations and the others failed to notice or report them.
- The court issued an order to show cause related to the fabrications.
- The page identifies a New York court but not the judge by name.
- Published May 29, 2026; the page says there is a video of the bench slap, about 22 minutes long.
A New York lawyer filed court papers citing fake legal cases generated by ChatGPT, and the judge fined the lawyer and his firm $5,000.
Unknown New York lawyer matter · a New York lawyer · court not named on page · NY
bloomfire.com ↗
The file →
- A New York lawyer and his firm were fined in court.
- He filed papers with fake legal cases generated by ChatGPT.
- The judge imposed a $5,000 fine.
- The page does not name the court or judge.
- The article names ChatGPT as the source of the fabricated citations.
Caught, not sanctioned
A law firm filed a court paper containing AI-fabricated case citations and apologized to the judge for the errors.
New York Times-reported law firm matter
posteo.de ↗
The file →
- A US law firm submitted a filing with AI-fabricated citations.
- The New York Times reported the incident.
- The firm apologized to the judge for the errors.
- The page does not name the firm or any sanction.
- No sanction is stated on the page; only the filing and apology are described.
Two lawyers filed a brief with non-existent cases; the High Court warned of severe sanctions after ChatGPT was found to have been used.
High Court of Justice in London warning matter · High Court of Justice in London
“The technology was “not capable of conducting reliable legal research.””
posteo.de ↗
The file →
- Two lawyers submitted a brief citing cases that could not be found.
- One lawyer had asked ChatGPT for evidence supporting the claim.
- The High Court warned of severe sanctions, not a monetary penalty.
- High Court of Justice in London.
- Last summer; judge said the tools can produce plausible but incorrect responses.
Fined
$100K
Joanne Couvrette’s lawyers filed briefs with 15 AI-generated fake citations and eight fabricated quotations; Judge Clarke dismissed the claims with prejudice and fined the two lawyers over $100,000.
Joanne Couvrette v. Mark Wisnovsky and Michael Wisnovsky · Kendra Gustitus and the plaintiffs’ legal team · Oregon state court · OR
wealthmanagement.com ↗
The file →
- Joanne Couvrette’s legal team in the winery-feud case
- Filed briefs with 15 fake citations and eight fabricated quotations
- Dismissal with prejudice plus over $100,000 in fines and attorney fees
- Oregon state court; Judge Clarke
- May 6, 2026; the page says this may be the largest AI-related sanction ever imposed
Lindsay filed memoranda of law with fabricated citations and was sanctioned $2,500 after the court found she used AI-generated hallucinations.
Jimenez-Fogarty v. Fogarty · Tricia S. Lindsay · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein · NY
“"[C]ourts in this [C]ircuit have repeatedly found that presenting AI-generated hallucinations as valid caselaw constitutes subjective bad faith."”
reason.com ↗
The file →
- Jimenez-Fogarty v. Fogarty; Tricia S. Lindsay was sanctioned.
- She filed two memoranda of law citing numerous nonexistent cases.
- The court imposed a $2,500 fine and required notice to her client and other judges.
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.
- The opinion said Lindsay used an AI program and referenced Lexis Nexis AI-driven features.
Fined
$8K
Counsel conceded using AI and the court imposed $7,500 sanctions after five filings contained at least 23 fabricated cases.
In re Roisin · New York appellate court · NY
papers.ssrn.com ↗
The file →
- In re Roisin and counsel were sanctioned in the first New York appellate AI sanctions case.
- Five filings contained at least 23 fabricated cases after counsel used AI.
- The court imposed $7,500 in sanctions against counsel.
- New York appellate court in New York.
- The page says counsel conceded AI use but does not name the tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
The First Department declined to impose sanctions after the defendant cited four nonexistent cases.
NewRez LLC v Morton · Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Department · NY
nycourts.gov ↗
The file →
- NewRez LLC v Morton involved a defendant cited for using four nonexistent cases.
- The page says the court declined to impose a sanction.
- No monetary amount was imposed.
- The court was the First Department of the New York Appellate Division.
- The page gives no AI tool, date, or quoted judicial language.
Fined
$250
A pro se filer submitted an AI-drafted brief citing a nonexistent case, and the Brooklyn-based New York state appeals court imposed a $250 sanction.
Brooklyn appeals court sanction of a pro se filer · Brooklyn-based New York state appeals court · NY
law.com ↗
The file →
- A pro se filer in a Brooklyn appeals matter was sanctioned.
- He filed an AI-drafted brief containing a nonexistent case citation.
- The court imposed a $250 monetary sanction.
- The sanction came from a Brooklyn-based New York state appeals court.
- The article says the filer’s pro se status was no excuse, but names no AI tool or citation.
Referred to the bar
Pinsent Masons referred itself to the SRA after letters based on its internal AI search results misled the court twice.
Pinsent Masons · Pinsent Masons · SRA / ICC Judge Mullen
lawgazette.co.uk ↗
The file →
- Pinsent Masons was the firm involved in the incident.
- Letters to the court misapplied the law based on AI search results.
- The firm referred itself to the SRA; three solicitors were also to face enquiries.
- The matter was linked to ICC Judge Mullen and the SRA in England and Wales.
- The article says junior-lawyer chats with AI produced the faulty research and that senior lawyers signed off without knowing.
Mr. Sauve filed a new federal complaint using ChatGPT and Claude that was described as a fake case littered with hallucinated citations in violation of court rules.
Sauve · Mr. Sauve · federal court
nytimes.com ↗
The file →
- Mr. Sauve filed a new federal complaint.
- The pleading used ChatGPT and Claude and was described as a fake case.
- The page does not state any sanction or amount.
- The court is identified only as federal court.
- No date or judge name is given; the article says the complaint had hallucinated citations.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
Attorney Harp was ordered to produce his ChatGPT history so the court could determine whether he had submitted hallucinated AI quotations.
Attorney Harp · Attorney Harp · United States District Court, Northern District of California · CA
websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com ↗
The file →
- Attorney Harp was the lawyer under scrutiny.
- The issue was whether he submitted hallucinated AI quotations to the court.
- The court ordered him to produce his ChatGPT history.
- United States District Court, Northern District of California.
- No sanction amount was stated; the order was to investigate possible AI misuse.
Fined
$110K
Two attorneys filed briefs with citations to non-existent cases and fabricated quotations, and U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke imposed a $110,000 penalty.
Two attorneys in federal court · U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke
govtech.com ↗
The file →
- Two attorneys in federal court
- Briefs cited non-existent cases and fabricated quotations
- Judge Mark D. Clarke imposed a $110,000 penalty
- Federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke
- Date not given; the article identifies the judge and total penalty
Fined
$8K
An attorney filed a brief with fabricated quotations and propositions of law falsely attributed to existing cases, and received about an $8,000 fine.
Another Oregon case last week · OR
govtech.com ↗
The file →
- Unnamed Oregon attorney in another case
- Brief contained fabricated quotations and propositions of law
- About an $8,000 fine was imposed
- Oregon state court
- Date not given; the article says it happened last week
Caught, not sanctioned
Matthew Reeves was sanctioned for made-up citations in two court filings in a case, the page says.
Matthew Reeves · Matthew Reeves
reuters.com ↗
The file →
- Matthew Reeves was sanctioned as a former partner at Butler Snow.
- He was sanctioned for made-up citations in two court filings.
- The page does not state the sanction type or amount.
- The page does not identify the court or jurisdiction.
- The page gives no date, judge quote, or AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
Michael Morgan was sanctioned for signing a brief that included AI-hallucinated citations.
Michael Morgan · Michael Morgan · Wyoming federal court · WY
law.com ↗
The file →
- Michael Morgan was sanctioned in Wyoming federal court.
- He signed his name on a brief that included AI-hallucinated citations.
- The page does not state the sanction amount or type for that order.
- The court was a federal court in Wyoming.
- The incident was in 2025; the page does not name the AI tool or quote the judge.
Caught, not sanctioned
A Manhattan big-law firm sent SDNY a letter apologizing for briefs that used fake citations generated by an unnamed AI program, and the court sanctioned the misuse.
In re: [unnamed Manhattan firm letter to SDNY] · a prominent big-law firm in Manhattan · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
lbkmlaw.com ↗
The file →
- A prominent big-law firm in Manhattan was involved in the SDNY letter.
- The firm apologized for using fake citations provided by an unnamed AI program.
- The page does not state a monetary sanction; it describes an apology to the court.
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, New York.
- No date is given; the article says the firm’s review process missed the inaccurate AI citations.
Warned
The Royal Court of Guernsey approved guidance warning that cited cases must be genuine and said the guidance was of indisputable importance.
States of Guernsey v Ogier · Royal Court of Guernsey
“of indisputable importance for matters”
collascrill.com ↗
The file →
- States of Guernsey v Ogier was in the Royal Court of Guernsey.
- The court addressed AI-generated hallucinations in legal citations.
- It cautioned that cited cases must be genuine and support the proposition advanced.
- Royal Court of Guernsey, Guernsey.
- 2026; the court approved Baker LJ's guidance on AI use.
Fined
$31K
Kotak Law submitted court materials containing AI-fabricated case citations and faced a $31,150 costs award.
Kotak Law · Kotak Law · Canadian court or tribunal
my.headtopics.com ↗
The file →
- Kotak Law was the named firm in the article.
- It submitted court materials containing AI-fabricated case citations.
- The court imposed $31,150 in costs.
- The venue was a Canadian court or tribunal.
- The article does not name the date, judge, or AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
The judge punished four lawyers and canceled the civil trial after some of them filed AI-generated fake case citations.
A federal civil trial in Mississippi · federal court · MS
seattletimes.com ↗
The file →
- A federal civil trial in Mississippi involving four lawyers
- Some lawyers filed AI-generated fake case citations
- The judge punished the lawyers and canceled the proceedings
- Federal court in Mississippi
- Date not given; the article says the trial was canceled after the fake citations
Fined
$500
He filed a brief with AI-generated quotes and had earlier filed fake case citations, leading to $500 sanctions and later AI-education requirements.
David Stich · David Stich · federal court · CT
law360.com ↗
The file →
- David Stich in Connecticut federal court
- He filed a brief with AI-generated quotes and fake case citations
- He was ordered to pay $500 and later take AI education
- A Connecticut federal judge
- The article says he must share what he learned with other lawyers
Caught, not sanctioned
Submissions to the High Court cited non-existent authorities, and the court held lawyers must verify AI research before relying on it.
R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey · High Court of Justice, Divisional Court
“Those who use artificial intelligence to conduct legal research notwithstanding these risks have a professional duty to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.”
lawyersprompt.co.uk ↗
The file →
- R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey / Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank
- Submissions cited authorities that did not exist, the hallmark of AI fabrication.
- No sanction is described on this page; the court instead set a verification duty.
- High Court of Justice, Divisional Court, England and Wales.
- [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin); Dame Victoria Sharp P gave judgment and compared AI to a trainee's work.
Reprimanded
An attorney filed a brief in Texas with false or incongruous citations from unreviewed AI-generated documents, leading to reciprocal discipline in New York.
Matter of Zareh · First Department · NY
nysba.org ↗
The file →
- Matter of Zareh involved the plaintiff’s attorney
- Texas court found the citations and brief were unreviewed AI-generated documents
- New York imposed reciprocal public censure
- First Department, New York state proceeding
- The article says the Texas sanction was a public reprimand
Fined
$500
The court fined a respondent $500 after a filing contained legal arguments that could not be verified in Oregon case law.
[second Oregon Supreme Court case not named on page] · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
ijpr.org ↗
The file →
- Oregon Supreme Court case; respondent was sanctioned for a filing.
- The document referred to legal arguments that could not be verified in Oregon case law.
- The court imposed a $500 fine and allowed resubmission.
- Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon.
- Friday ruling in June 2026; the page does not name the AI tool used.
The court dismissed a mandamus petition after plaintiffs filed LegalAI-backed papers with nonexistent cases, fake quotes, and at least four made-up citations.
Oregon Supreme Court case · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
““Rather than taking the time necessary to ensure that they did not compound the burdens on the court, however,” the justices wrote in their order that less than 12 hours after receiving the order, plaintiffs dug a deeper hole by filing “a declaration that included citations to at least four cases that do not exist in the Oregon Appellate Reports or the Oregon Reports.””
ijpr.org ↗
The file →
- Oregon Supreme Court case; plaintiffs were sanctioned by dismissal.
- They submitted supporting documents using LegalAI with fabricated citations and fake quotes.
- The court dismissed the petition for a writ of mandamus.
- Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon.
- Friday ruling in June 2026; justices said the papers added fabricated legal arguments and cited at least four nonexistent cases.
Caught, not sanctioned
Fake case citations appeared to be AI hallucinations, and the court struck the papers and denied summary judgment.
Gully v Varghese · Sup Ct, Albany Cty · NY
nycivillaw.blog ↗
The file →
- Gully v Varghese involved fake case citations that appeared to be AI hallucinations.
- The court struck the offending papers and denied summary judgment.
- No monetary sanction is stated on the page.
- Supreme Court, Albany County, New York.
- The page says future violations could lead to more serious consequences.
Fined
A pro se litigant filed a brief with fictitious legal authority, and the court imposed a monetary sanction.
Matter of Julien v Arthur · Appellate Division, Second Department · NY
nycivillaw.blog ↗
The file →
- Matter of Julien v Arthur involved a pro se litigant sanctioned for fictitious legal authority.
- The brief contained hallucinated citations and false authority.
- The court imposed a monetary sanction.
- Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
- The page says even one fabricated case citation can constitute frivolous conduct.
Caught, not sanctioned
The court discussed AI disclosure duties after confronting hallucinations and 'misgroundings' in legal submissions.
Michaelis v Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB · Michaelis · unknown
gerberciano.com ↗
The file →
- Michaelis v Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB is identified by name in the article.
- The court addressed hallucinations and 'misgroundings' in AI-assisted legal submissions.
- No sanction is described in the article for this decision.
- The court is not identified by name in the article.
- The article says the case discussed disclosure obligations relating to AI use.
Warned
A pro se defendant filed submissions with AI-generated arguments, incorrect citations, phantom cases, and fabricated quotations; the court found them frivolous and warned of sanctions.
Keefe v. BMakin Film LTD · BMakin Film LTD · Supreme Court, New York · NY
““Submissions that rely on non-existent cases generated by artificial intelligence, resulting in AI ‘hallucinations’ and cases that do not stand for the propositions alleged, are considered ‘frivolous conduct’ under 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 and are sanctionable.””
gerberciano.com ↗
The file →
- Keefe v. BMakin Film LTD involved a pro se defendant's filings.
- The submissions contained AI-generated arguments, incorrect citations, phantom cases, and fabricated quotations.
- The court found the conduct frivolous and warned future violations would bring monetary sanctions.
- The court was in New York state court.
- The article quotes the court on non-existent AI-generated cases being sanctionable.
Reprimanded
A lawyer again filed documents with fake legal cases generated by an AI tool, and the court reprimanded them.
September 2025 Canadian case
thehumlawfirm.ca ↗
The file →
- September 2025 Canadian case
- The page says this happened again in September 2025.
- The filing contained made-up citations to non-existent cases.
- The court reprimanded the lawyer for the AI misuse.
- No case caption, attorney name, court, judge, or AI tool is given on the page.
Caught, not sanctioned
Gemini
An attorney cited an unrelated Supreme Court precedent and later said they had not properly reviewed it after searching with Google Gemini.
Ulsan District Court matter · an attorney at the Ulsan District Court · Ulsan District Court
koreaherald.com ↗
The file →
- Ulsan District Court matter; an attorney at the Ulsan District Court
- The attorney cited an unrelated Supreme Court precedent in a filing
- The page reports no sanction, only the attorney's later acknowledgment
- Ulsan District Court, South Korea
- Published June 14, 2026; the attorney said the search was done using Google Gemini
Caught, not sanctioned
An attorney filed a brief citing a nonexistent Supreme Court precedent and then cited another nonexistent case when the court asked for clarification.
Daegu High Court matter · an attorney handling a case at the Daegu High Court · Daegu High Court
koreaherald.com ↗
The file →
- Daegu High Court matter; an attorney handling a case there
- The attorney filed a nonexistent Supreme Court precedent and then another nonexistent case
- The page reports no sanction, only that the court sought clarification
- Daegu High Court, South Korea
- Published June 14, 2026; described in a Korean-language JoongAng Ilbo report
Caught, not sanctioned
The Oregon Supreme Court sanctioned litigants in two cases after AI-generated quotes and citations were filed.
Oregon Supreme Court sanctions two cases · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
bizjournals.com ↗
The file →
- Two cases were sanctioned by the Oregon Supreme Court.
- Litigants filed AI-fabricated quotes and citations.
- The page does not state a specific sanction amount.
- Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon.
- The article says the orders were issued last week and were the first of their kind.
The firm submitted a brief containing generative-AI mistakes and erroneous citations, and a state appellate panel upheld $6,000 in sanctions.
Lipeles Law Group sanctions appeal · Lipeles Law Group · California appellate panel · CA
“the worst example of misconduct by a lawyer that I think I’ve ever seen since I’ve been on the bench.”
law.com ↗
The file →
- Lipeles Law Group was sanctioned after filing a brief with AI mistakes and erroneous cites.
- The article says a contract attorney was responsible for the citation errors.
- The appellate panel upheld $6,000 in sanctions.
- A California state appellate panel handled the matter.
- The article says the attorney used a 'premier corporate subscription of ChatGPT'.
Fined
$2K
The firm filed a brief containing numerous AI hallucinations, and the New York appeals court ordered it to pay a $2,500 sanction.
Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff · Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff · New York Appellate Division, Second Department · NY
“the law firm's name appeared on the case filing that contained "significant misrepresentations," the court explained.”
law.com ↗
The file →
- Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff was sanctioned after an attorney filed a brief with AI hallucinations.
- The filing contained numerous artificial intelligence hallucinations and significant misrepresentations.
- The court ordered a $2,500 sanction against the firm.
- The decision came from New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department in Brooklyn.
- The article says the lawyer’s mistake went against firm policy, but names no AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
A plaintiff staffing subcontractor admitted using AI to draft, research, and cite-check its brief, which allegedly included fabricated quotations and a non-existent Texas Supreme Court quote.
A2K Inc. v. Fluor Corp. et al. · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas · TX
joneswalker.com ↗
The file →
- A2K Inc. v. Fluor Corp. et al.; a plaintiff staffing subcontractor
- The brief allegedly used generative AI and included fabricated quotations and a non-existent Texas Supreme Court quote
- No sanction is described in the article; Fluor argued the brief should not get a 'do-over'
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
- June 18 report cited by the article; AI use was admitted and the brief was tied to a motion to dismiss
Warned
A lawyer used AI that put forward unreliable case law and was put under supervision.
Lawyer under supervision in Manitoba · Law Society of Manitoba
cbc.ca ↗
The file →
- Lawyer under supervision in Manitoba
- The lawyer used AI that put forward unreliable case law.
- The lawyer was put under supervision.
- Law Society of Manitoba, Manitoba.
- No date or AI tool is given on the page.
A regulated immigration adviser filed an appeal application using fictitious case law from Google’s AI Mode and faced potential SRA censure.
UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Mr. Zubair Rasheed of City Law Practice Solicitors · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“it would be easy to think that this is a case about the naïve use of generative AI, but it is not merely about that; it is principally about supervision and the obligation to ensure that the tribunal is not misled.”
thelens.slaughterandmay.com ↗
The file →
- UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a regulated immigration adviser.
- He used fictitious case law from Google’s AI Mode in an application for permission to appeal.
- The court said it would have reported him if he had not self-reported.
- Court: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), UK.
- The adviser also put draft emails and Home Office letters into ChatGPT.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
Farah Chalisa said she used ChatGPT for stylistic and grammatical review, and the court discussed the resulting AI-related citation problem.
Salah v. Walmart Inc. · Farah Chalisa · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
media.ca7.uscourts.gov ↗
The file →
- Salah v. Walmart Inc.; Farah Chalisa
- Chalisa said she used ChatGPT for stylistic and grammatical review
- The page does not state any sanction or amount for this order
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- The page names ChatGPT and says Chalisa did not enter an appearance
Fined
A self-represented party relied on cases that did not exist or could not be found, and the Authority awarded increased costs.
O’Driscoll v Rehab Co Mobile Limited · Employment Relations Authority
minterellison.co.nz ↗
The file →
- O’Driscoll v Rehab Co Mobile Limited involved a self-represented party.
- The party cited cases that did not exist or could not be found.
- The Authority awarded increased costs.
- Employment Relations Authority, New Zealand.
- [2026] NZERA 106; it noted the GenAI Guidelines had already been drawn to the applicant's attention.
Caught, not sanctioned
A self-represented litigant filed submissions citing a decision the court could not locate, likely generated by AI, and the court warned AI outputs must be verified.
LMN v STC (No 2) [2025] NZEmpC 46 · New Zealand Employment Court
minterellison.co.nz ↗
The file →
- LMN v STC (No 2) [2025] NZEmpC 46; a self-represented litigant was involved
- Filed a citation to a decision the court could not locate, likely AI-created
- The court warned that AI outputs must be verified before filing
- New Zealand Employment Court
- 16 October 2025; no AI tool was named
Fined
Two lawyers were disciplined for filing briefs with AI hallucinations and barred from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years.
Mississippi disciplinary matter · Northern District of Mississippi · MS
attorneyatlawmagazine.com ↗
The file →
- Mississippi disciplinary matter; two lawyers were disciplined
- They submitted briefs with AI hallucinations
- They were barred from appearing for two years and fined
- Northern District of Mississippi, Mississippi
- The article says this happened just before publication and gives no tool name
Fined
Four attorneys on both sides filed court papers with AI-generated fabricated legal citations and the federal judge disqualified them, fined them, and barred them from the district for two years.
Withers v. Aberdeen (City) · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · MS
oecd.ai ↗
The file →
- Withers v. Aberdeen (City) involved four attorneys from both sides.
- They submitted filings containing AI-generated fabricated legal citations.
- The judge imposed disqualification, fines, and a two-year practice ban.
- It was in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
- The page says the lawyers failed to verify the AI-generated content.
Sanders and the law firm filed briefs containing fabricated and/or erroneous legal authority and citations, and the page says sanctions and/or costs were sought or imposed.
Landberg v City of New York · Sanders and the law firm · New York Appellate Division, Second Department · NY
“The Court didn't mince words.”
nycourts.gov ↗
The file →
- Landberg v City of New York involved Sanders and the law firm.
- They filed briefs containing fabricated and/or erroneous legal authority and citations.
- The page mentions sanctions and/or costs, but gives no amount.
- The court is not identified on the page beyond the case title.
- No AI tool, judge, or date is stated on the page.
Caught, not sanctioned
A self-represented appellant filed an appeal with AI-generated citations, and the court questioned him about the documents.
Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163 · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, appellate division
““carried with it risks as well as opportunities”.”
aitken.com.au ↗
The file →
- Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163 involved a self-represented appellant.
- He filed a Notice of Appeal and Summary of Argument with AI-generated material.
- The court questioned him about the documents after finding cited cases that could not be located or did not support the propositions.
- No sanction is reported on the page; the outcome described is a court warning, not punishment.
- The appellate division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia cited Dame Victoria Sharp’s AI caution and said unverified AI research can mislead the court.
Caught, not sanctioned
A practitioner submitted a list of prior cases that did not exist after relying on a practice management software AI feature.
Handa & Mallick [2024] FedCFamC2F 957 · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
lst.org.au ↗
The file →
- Handa & Mallick [2024] FedCFamC2F 957 involved a practitioner
- The practitioner filed a list of prior cases that simply did not exist
- The page says he relied on practice management software’s AI feature
- The matter was in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
- The page does not report a sanction or date for the court response
Filing dismissed
The court found opposition papers cited nonexistent opinions and dismissed the pro se complaint with prejudice.
Meril and Keith Dillard v. CBS Studios, Inc. · Meril and Keith Dillard · Federal court
“Because pro se parties are also bound by the Rule 11 duty to confirm that cited authorities exist and support their propositions, the court dismissed with prejudice, finding amendment would yield “additional unsupported allegations” and more defective filings rather than curing the complaint’s deficiencies.”
completeaitraining.com ↗
The file →
- Meril and Keith Dillard v. CBS Studios, Inc. was a copyright action.
- The filings included mischaracterizations, apparently AI-generated images, and an opposition brief citing several nonexistent opinions.
- The court dismissed with prejudice, treating amendment as futile.
- Federal court; the page gives no specific judge name or state.
- The page says pro se parties still must verify authorities under Rule 11.
Caught, not sanctioned
The court found three cited authorities did not appear to exist and ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
Hernandez v. Lopez · Federal court
“While the Court does not prohibit counsel from using generative AI tools, counsel must comply with Rule 11(b), including confirmation that cases cited within a brief exist.”
completeaitraining.com ↗
The file →
- Hernandez v. Lopez was a trademark dispute.
- The brief contained three cited authorities that did not appear to exist and were likely hallucinated.
- The court issued an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
- Federal court; jurisdiction and state were not identified on the page.
- The page quotes the court on Rule 11 and verifying cited cases.
Caught, not sanctioned
A Colorado attorney was suspended after falsely blaming fabricated citations on a legal intern instead of his own AI use.
Colorado attorney · Colorado court · CO
georgehornedo.substack.com ↗
The file →
- Colorado attorney; license suspension
- Fabricated citations were blamed on a legal intern rather than AI
- The page does not state a monetary sanction
- Colorado court, Colorado
- Suspension was made more serious by the false blame
Fined
$110K
An Oregon case involving AI-fabricated citations reportedly resulted in $110,000 in sanctions.
An Oregon case · Oregon court · OR
georgehornedo.substack.com ↗
The file →
- An Oregon case; unidentified lawyer or firm
- AI-fabricated citations led to sanctions
- $110,000 monetary sanctions were imposed
- Oregon court, Oregon
- Page gives no caption or date, only the sanction figure
Forrister submitted AI-fabricated citations in a filing and faced discipline from the Texas Supreme Court.
In re: The State Bar of Texas v. Christopher W. Forrister · Christopher W. Forrister · Supreme Court of Texas · TX
caseread.ai ↗
The file →
- Christopher W. Forrister was disciplined for AI-fabricated citations.
- He filed a document that included fake citations generated by AI.
- The Texas Supreme Court issued a reprimand.
- The court was the Supreme Court of Texas.
- The page names ChatGPT as the AI tool but gives no order date.
Warned
Attorney Thomas Guyer filed a brief with AI-generated misquotes and incorrect citations, and Judge Thomas Cullen declined to sanction him and issued a warning instead.
Thomas Guyer · Thomas Guyer · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky · KY
“sufficient deterrent”
theintake0.substack.com ↗
The file →
- Thomas Guyer was the attorney reviewed by the court
- He filed a brief with AI-generated misquotes and incorrect citations
- Judge Thomas Cullen declined sanctions and gave a warning
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
- The article says Guyer was remorseful and had no history of misconduct
Caught, not sanctioned
The Home Office refused an asylum claim relying on a Morocco CPIN that the judge said bore hallmarks of AI hallucination and may not exist.
Moroccan woman's asylum claim · Home Office · UK Upper Tribunal
“if the citation was an AI 'hallucination', that would be 'analogous to relying on bogus evidence' and represent a procedural irregularity.”
aiweekly.co ↗
The file →
- Home Office refused a Moroccan woman's asylum claim.
- The refusal relied on a Morocco CPIN dated July 2021 that could not be located.
- No sanction was imposed in the article; the judge flagged a possible procedural irregularity.
- UK Upper Tribunal, not further specified.
- The judge said the letter bore hallmarks consistent with artificial intelligence.
Fined
A solicitor filed 25 non-existent AI-generated authorities and was ordered to pay over £24,000 in costs.
Bandla v SRA · a solicitor in Bandla v SRA · High Court of Justice, Administrative Court
definely.com ↗
The file →
- Bandla v SRA; a solicitor was sanctioned
- The filing involved 25 non-existent AI-generated authorities
- The court ordered over £24,000 in costs
- High Court of Justice, Administrative Court, England and Wales
- [2025] EWHC 1167 (Admin); the page does not name the AI tool
Caught, not sanctioned
The Supreme Court set aside NCLT and NCLAT orders that cited non-existent judgments, described as likely AI hallucinations.
National Company Law Tribunal / National Company Law Appellate Tribunal orders · Supreme Court of India
theweek.in ↗
The file →
- NCLT and NCLAT orders were set aside by the Supreme Court
- The tribunals cited judgments that did not exist
- The article describes the false precedents as likely AI hallucinations
- The ruling came from the Supreme Court of India
- The page gives no lawyer or firm name and no specific citation strings
Caught, not sanctioned
Defense counsel filed a sanctions motion alleging plaintiffs used inaccurate AI-generated citations in discovery in an Uber passenger sexual assault bellwether case.
MDL No. 3084 · Northern District of California · CA
yipinstitute.org ↗
The file →
- Defense counsel alleged plaintiffs used inaccurate AI-generated citations in discovery.
- The page says a sanctions motion was filed, but no sanction order is described.
- Northern District of California, federal court.
- No date, no named judge, and no AI tool are given.
Warned
The Arizona Court of Appeals held that filing fake AI-generated cases can draw sanctions regardless of the filer's intent.
AZ Court of Appeals: Citing Fake AI-Generated Cases Can Get You Sanctioned, No Matter Your Intent · Arizona Court of Appeals · AZ
trxchange.com ↗
The file →
- Arizona Court of Appeals matter about fake AI-generated cases
- A filing cited fabricated AI cases and the court said intent did not matter
- Sanction consequence described as sanctionable conduct; no amount stated
- Arizona Court of Appeals in Arizona state court
- July 2026 roundup; the article names no attorney, firm, or AI tool
Reprimanded
$47K
Attorney Joshua B. Watkins and Burrill Watkins LLC were publicly reprimanded for AI-fabricated legal statements and citations in Rivera v. Triad Properties Corp.
Rivera v. Triad Properties Corp. · Joshua B. Watkins; Burrill Watkins LLC · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · AL
“Mr. Watkins's misconduct includes—and extends well beyond—the misuse of artificial intelligence to make both misleading and outright fabricated statements of law.”
reason.com ↗
The file →
- Rivera v. Triad Properties Corp.; Joshua B. Watkins and Burrill Watkins LLC were sanctioned.
- Watkins used AI to make false statements of law and hallucinated cases in filings and hearings.
- The court publicly reprimanded them and ordered $47,056.90 in fee payments total.
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama; Judge Anna Manasco.
- The order says the conduct violated Rule 11 and warranted sanctions under the court's inherent authority.
Reprimanded
A petitioner and counsel filed hallucinated sources, and the court issued a reprimand and told them to verify their sources.
Périgueux case · court in Périgueux
ictrechtswijzer.be ↗
The file →
- Périgueux case; petitioner and counsel were reprimanded
- They filed sources that were hallucinations
- The court issued a reprimand, with no amount stated
- Court in Périgueux, France
- No date or AI tool was given; the court told them to verify sources
Caught, not sanctioned
A party quoted text from paragraph 150 of a decision that only has 124 paragraphs, and the tribunal flagged the AI misuse.
Re X Corp. · British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal · BC
slaw.ca ↗
The file →
- Re X Corp.; a party filed the material
- The party quoted a block of text from paragraph 150 of a decision with only 124 paragraphs
- No sanction is reported on the page; the tribunal flagged the misuse
- British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal, British Columbia
- 2025 BCCRT 1228; the article describes it as a fake quote from a real decision
Reprimanded
The Georgia Supreme Court found an order contained non-existent or unsupported citations and admonished and suspended the prosecutor for six months.
Payne vs. State · Supreme Court of Georgia · GA
“The state justices urged trial judges to examine proposed court orders “with the understanding that artificial intelligence software, with all of its potential risks and benefits, may have been used”.”
blogs.lse.ac.uk ↗
The file →
- Payne vs. State involved an order with non-existent citations.
- The proposed order was prepared by the prosecutor with help from an LLM tool.
- The court admonished the prosecutor and suspended her for six months.
- Supreme Court of Georgia; Georgia.
- The page says she did not cross-check the citations before submitting them.
Caught, not sanctioned
The appellate court reversed a trial ruling that relied on fictitious case citations copied from a defense filing.
H. C. v. Contreras · California 5th District Court of Appeal · CA
blogs.lse.ac.uk ↗
The file →
- H. C. v. Contreras involved fictitious case citations in a trial ruling.
- The ruling appeared to have been copied from the defense attorney’s filing.
- The appellate court reversed the trial judge’s ruling.
- California 5th District Court of Appeal; California.
- Late May 2026; the opinion said the trial court abused its discretion.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
Michael Best was cited as an example of a lawyer or firm facing sanction risk for submitting AI-generated filings with fabricated citations.
Michael Best · Michael Best
lexology.com ↗
The file →
- Michael Best was named on the page as a real incident reference.
- The page says it involved AI-generated filings with fabricated citations.
- No specific sanction amount or order is stated on the page.
- No court, judge, or location is identified on the page.
- The page links the problem to ChatGPT and fabricated legal guidance.
Justice Kenneth Salinger denied T. Michael Morgan’s pro hac vice motion after he was sanctioned in Wyoming for filing motions citing eight nonexistent AI-hallucinated cases.
T. Michael Morgan · T. Michael Morgan · Suffolk County Superior Court · MA
“Morgan has made no showing that he has learned from his mistakes in that case.”
aei.org ↗
The file →
- T. Michael Morgan of Morgan & Morgan was the attorney involved.
- He had been sanctioned in Wyoming for motions citing eight non-existent cases hallucinated by the firm’s AI.
- The Massachusetts court denied his pro hac vice motion; no amount is stated here.
- Suffolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts.
- May 2026; Justice Kenneth Salinger cited Morgan’s failure to meet ethical standards.
Fined
$3K
Cho filed a reply brief with nonexistent cases and fabricated propositions from generative AI, and the court sanctioned him and struck the brief.
OTG New York, Inc. v. Ottogi America, Inc. · Sukjin Henry Cho · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Magistrate Judge José R. Almonte · NJ
“Mr. Cho has confirmed that he indeed used AI, which provided him with hallucinated case law and propositions that he then incorporated into his reply brief without verification.”
theinternetninja.com ↗
The file →
- OTG New York, Inc. v. Ottogi America, Inc.; Sukjin Henry Cho was sanctioned.
- Cho filed a reply brief using AI-hallucinated case law and propositions.
- The court imposed a $3,000 Rule 11(c) monetary sanction.
- U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; Magistrate Judge José R. Almonte.
- No AI product was named; the court said the AI provided hallucinated case law without verification.
Fined
An Illinois court fined an attorney for repeated AI-hallucinated case citations.
Doe v. Fake AI case · Illinois Appeals Court · IL
thejcr.com ↗
The file →
- Illinois appellate case involving an attorney fined for AI-hallucinated citations
- The article says repeated fake case citations were filed
- The court imposed a fine at a higher than typical rate
- Illinois Appeals Court in Illinois
- July 29, 2026; Law.com reported the order on July 29
Reprimanded
A lawyer filed fake and hallucinated citations in a brief and was reprimanded by the U.S. appeals court.
Lawyer’s use of “fake and hallucinated” citations gets reprimand from U.S. appeals court · U.S. appeals court
l4sb.com ↗
The file →
- A lawyer was reprimanded after filing fake and hallucinated citations.
- The page says the citations were fake and hallucinated due to AI hallucinations.
- The sanction was a reprimand with no amount stated.
- The court was a U.S. appeals court in federal court.
- The page gives no attorney name, date, or AI tool.
Warned
The court admonished lawyers for relying on chatbot research and urged independent reading instead.
Parker v Forsyth NO and Others
““In this age of instant gratification, this incident serves as a timely reminder to, at least, the lawyers involved in this matter that when it comes to legal research, the efficiency of modern technology still needs to be infused with a dose of good old-fashioned independent reading. Courts expect lawyers to bring a legally-independent and questioning mind to bear on, especially, novel legal matters, and certainly not to merely repeat in parrot-fashion, the unverified research of a chatbot.””
mondaq.com ↗
The file →
- Parker v Forsyth NO and Others; lawyers were admonished
- The court said lawyers repeated unverified chatbot research in parrot-fashion
- The court issued a warning-style admonition, not a monetary sanction
- Court and location are not stated on the page
- The page quotes the court's warning about legal research and a chatbot
Filing dismissed
The court dismissed Mr Ba's claim after he failed to produce documents in an evidence list that appeared to be AI-generated fabrications.
Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
“the Court determined to dismiss Mr Ba's claim.”
mondaq.com ↗
The file →
- Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd was dismissed after Mr Ba failed to produce documents in his evidence list.
- His evidence list referenced 38 documents that the court inferred did not exist.
- Sanction type was dismissal; no monetary amount was imposed.
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Australia.
- 3 August 2026; the article says the documents appeared to be AI-generated fabrications.
Fined
$110K
Two lawyers filed 15 fabricated citations and eight invented quotations, and a federal magistrate judge sanctioned them $110,000.
In re Two Oregon Lawyers · U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · OR
customgpt.ai ↗
The file →
- In re Two Oregon Lawyers involved two lawyers in Oregon.
- They filed 15 fabricated citations and eight invented quotations.
- A federal magistrate judge imposed a $110,000 sanction.
- U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Oregon.
- The page says it was the largest such penalty handed down by an Oregon federal judge.
Fined
A Melbourne law firm was ordered to pay costs after it was caught using fake AI-generated citations and incorrect cases.
[Melbourne law firm matter] · a Melbourne law firm · VIC
ia.acs.org.au ↗
The file →
- A Melbourne law firm was sanctioned in a separate matter.
- It was caught using fake AI-generated citations and incorrect cases.
- The firm was ordered to pay costs, but the amount is not given on the page.
- Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
- The article says this happened last month and gives no judge name or AI tool.
Warned
Counsel filed written submissions containing AI-generated hallucinations, and Justice Elliott warned that counsel and solicitors must independently verify any AI use.
Director of Public Prosecutions v GR · Supreme Court of Victoria · VIC
“The ability of the court to rely upon the accuracy of submissions made by counsel is fundamental to the due administration of justice.”
kirstenegroth.blog ↗
The file →
- Director of Public Prosecutions v GR; a Victorian barrister and instructing solicitors were singled out
- Written submissions contained AI-generated hallucinations
- Warning, with no monetary penalty stated
- Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia
- 2025; Justice Elliott said counsel bear full responsibility and AI must be thoroughly verified
Referred to the bar
A Western Australian lawyer was referred to the state regulator after submitting documents with fake AI-generated cases and inaccurate citations.
Western Australian lawyer · state regulator · WA
“the attraction of AI for lawyers was currently a “dangerous mirage”.”
ia.acs.org.au ↗
The file →
- A Western Australian lawyer was referred to the state regulator.
- The lawyer tendered documents citing four cases that did not exist or were cited inaccurately.
- The sanction was a referral; the article gives no amount.
- The court was in Western Australia, but the judge’s name is not given.
- The lawyer admitted overconfidence in AI tools and failure to verify the results.
Fined
$31K
A Canadian tribunal found court materials with AI-fabricated case citations and ordered the lawyer to pay $31,150 in costs.
Giacomini et al. v. University of Toronto Mississauga · Ontario court
cp24.com ↗
The file →
- Giacomini et al. v. University of Toronto Mississauga; the lawyer was sanctioned
- Court materials contained AI-fabricated case citations
- The tribunal ordered $31,150 in costs
- A Canadian tribunal in Ontario
- Published June 27, 2026; the article says it was the largest costs award of its kind to date
Reprimanded
A lawyer filed an appellate brief with eight DEA adjudications, seven misrepresented and one nonexistent, and the Third Circuit reprimanded him.
McCarthy v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
“Attorney has harmed his credibility with this Court.”
stevenslee.com ↗
The file →
- McCarthy v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration; the physician assistant’s lawyer was sanctioned.
- He filed an opening brief using eight DEA adjudications from his client, but seven were misrepresented and one did not exist.
- The Third Circuit reprimanded him in a precedential decision, with no monetary penalty imposed.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; Judge Cindy Chung authored the decision.
- The court said it would have imposed a monetary penalty absent the lack of prior Third Circuit guidance.
Reprimanded
A regulated trademark attorney relied on inaccurate AI outputs with fabricated authorities, and the tribunal found serious misconduct.
UKIPO Trademark Appeal (BL O/0559/25) · UK Intellectual Property Office
“A regulated professional is under a duty to exercise independent judgment and cannot abdicate that responsibility to an algorithm.”
thebarristergroup.co.uk ↗
The file →
- The page identifies a UKIPO trademark appeal, BL O/0559/25.
- Both an LIP and a regulated trademark attorney relied on inaccurate AI outputs, including fabricated authorities.
- For the attorney, the tribunal treated the conduct as serious misconduct.
- The matter was before the UK Intellectual Property Office.
- The page says the attorney was subject to the stricter professional standard because he was regulated.
Warned
A pro se opening brief used eight AI-generated fake cases, but the court declined sanctions and instead warned future misuse may be sanctioned.
Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC · Colorado Court of Appeals · CO
“technological convenience must never outweigh accuracy and integrity in the judicial process.”
cl.cobar.org ↗
The file →
- Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC; the self-represented plaintiff was the filer.
- The opening brief included eight AI-generated fake cases and he admitted the hallucinations.
- No sanction was imposed; the court issued a warning only.
- Colorado Court of Appeals, Colorado state court.
- Published opinion noted his pro se status and immediate admission as mitigating factors.
Warned
The claimant's background assistant cited cases that appeared to be AI hallucinations, and the tribunal warned against relying on AI but took no further action.
A v British Transport Police Authority · Employment Tribunal
“The judge explained to the claimant the danger of relying upon AI to source case authorities and the steps which must be taken to check that they are genuine.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- A v British Transport Police Authority; claimant's background assistant cited false cases
- Documents sent to the respondent contained cases that appeared to be AI hallucinations
- The tribunal took no further action after the claimant apologized
- Employment Tribunal
- 9 March 2026; tribunal refused to reproduce the false citations in the judgment
Caught, not sanctioned
The claimant used a generative AI tool to draft submissions with inaccurate and wholly inaccurate case-law references, and the tribunal ignored the legal points.
O Ilunga v Portico Cooperate Reception Management Ltd · Mr Green · Employment Tribunal
“It became apparent that the claimant had used a generative AI tool to assist her in producing her written submissions.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- O Ilunga v Portico Cooperate Reception Management Ltd; claimant used AI-assisted submissions
- Written submissions included case-law references that were not always accurate and some wholly inaccurate
- No sanction was imposed; the tribunal disregarded the legal principles asserted
- Employment Tribunal
- 9 March 2026; respondent said checking the citations would take considerable time and cost
Caught, not sanctioned
A pro se plaintiff filed a 112-page brief opposing a motion to dismiss that contained at least two entirely fabricated case citations.
pro se plaintiff
jdsupra.com ↗
The file →
- A pro se plaintiff was identified in the article, not a named lawyer or firm.
- He filed a 112-page brief opposing a motion to dismiss.
- The brief contained at least two entirely fabricated case citations.
- No sanction or court order is described on the page.
- The page gives no court, judge, date, or AI tool name.
Referred to the bar
A Clayton County prosecutor filed a brief with fabricated citations and later admitted using AI; the filing prompted possible discipline and referral to the State Bar.
Clayton County prosecutor filing · Tasha Mosley · Supreme Court of Georgia · GA
cbsnews.com ↗
The file →
- Clayton County prosecutor filing involving Tasha Mosley
- A brief contained multiple fabricated citations and at least five nonexistent cases
- Possible discipline and referral to the State Bar were discussed
- Supreme Court of Georgia, Georgia
- Date not stated; prosecutor admitted using artificial intelligence in drafting the filing
Outcome unclear
A Texas state-court matter involved AI-fabricated citations that led to sanctions.
Ex Parte Lee · TX
midwestfrontierai.substack.com ↗
The file →
- Ex Parte Lee.
- The page says attorneys got in trouble there for hallucinated citations.
- The sanctions are mentioned but not specified on this page.
- Texas state court.
- The page treats it as one of two earlier AI-citation trouble cases.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
A filing included fabricated citations after AI was used to add up fees, and the court issued an opinion.
Iovino v. MSA Security · W.D. Va. · VA
guides.law.byu.edu ↗
The file →
- Iovino v. MSA Security; lawyer or firm not named on the page
- ChatGPT was used in work that led to fabricated citations
- The page links only to a memorandum opinion, not a sanction order
- Western District of Virginia
- Summarized in the page's hallucinated-cases section
Caught, not sanctioned
A tribunal found a respondent relied on cases it could not find and prepared the grounds of appeal with an AI tool, engaging the tribunal’s resources.
Another Four UK AI Hallucination cases (AI and non‑AI fabricated/false citations) (24 in total): November Shows How Quickly the Problem Is Escalating Internationally · tribunal
“The tribunal is aware of the growing use of artificial intelligence and it would appear that an AI tool was used to prepare the Respondent’s grounds of appeal.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- The page describes an unnamed respondent before a tribunal.
- The grounds of appeal relied on cases the tribunal could not find or recognize.
- No sanction is stated on the page.
- A tribunal found the respondent’s appeal materials were AI-prepared.
- The page says the tribunal’s resources were disproportionately engaged.
Referred to the bar
$8K
Claude
A lawyer filed immigration submissions with four non-existent case citations and was referred to the WA legal regulator and ordered to pay costs.
Australia immigration case (anonymised lawyer referred to Legal Practice Board of Western Australia) · Federal Court of Australia
““demonstrates the inherent dangers associated with practitioners solely relying on the use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of court documents and the way in which that interacts with a practitioner’s duty to the court”.”
theguardian.com ↗
The file →
- An anonymised lawyer in an immigration case was referred to the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia.
- The court found the submissions contained four case citations that did not exist.
- The federal court ordered costs of $8,371.30 and made the referral.
- Federal Court of Australia; the lawyer was not named in the article.
- Justice Arran Gerrard said the case showed the dangers of solely relying on AI; the lawyer used Claude and Copilot.
Caught, not sanctioned
Jones Walker filed briefs containing AI-generated fake citations, and the court later slammed the lawyers over the false statements to the court.
Lee · Jones Walker · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
grassley.senate.gov ↗
The file →
- Lee; Jones Walker was the firm involved
- The firm filed briefs containing AI-generated fake citations
- The court addressed false statements to the court but the page does not state a sanction
- U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, New Jersey
- No date, AI tool, or judge quote is provided on the page
Filing dismissed
Attorney Steven Feldman filed papers with fake citations and the court terminated the case after repeated AI misuse.
Steven Feldman · Steven Feldman · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“the “extraordinary” sanctions were warranted”
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
- Steven Feldman was the attorney sanctioned in the Southern District of New York.
- He kept filing documents containing fake citations after being asked to correct them.
- The court terminated the case; the sanction was dismissal.
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, New York.
- Feb. 2026 article; Judge Katherine Polk Failla wrote the order and suspected AI use.
Caught, not sanctioned
COFC said the plaintiff relied on fabricated AI-generated case law and called the filing an unacceptable abuse of the adversary system.
Sanders v. United States · U.S. Court of Federal Claims
“the court emphasized citing non‑existent cases generated by AI constitutes an “unacceptable” “abuse of the adversary system.””
smithlaw.com ↗
The file →
- Sanders v. United States involved fabricated AI-generated case law.
- The plaintiff relied on fake authorities to advance arguments.
- The page reports no specific sanction order in this incident.
- U.S. Court of Federal Claims, federal court.
- 2025; COFC said such filings will not excuse jurisdictional defects.
Fined
The Tribunal issued reasons on costs in a matter involving fictitious case authorities filed with AI misuse, and the entry notes costs were ordered.
2026 ONLSTH 112, Reasons for Decision on Costs of Motions · Ontario’s Law Society Tribunal
courtready.ca ↗
The file →
- 2026 ONLSTH 112; counsel or firm not named on the page
- Filed fictitious case authorities and the page links it to AI misuse
- Costs were ordered in the reasons for decision
- Ontario’s Law Society Tribunal, Ontario
- Published on the page as a cited decision; no AI tool named
Caught, not sanctioned
The self-represented appellant used AI and cited four cases that did not exist; the tribunal granted an adjournment and then recorded the false citations so others would not repeat them.
Huish v The Commissioners for HMRC · UK First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)
““We attach no blame to him, since he is a litigant in person but we have recorded the names so that others do not fall into the same trap.””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- Huish v The Commissioners for HMRC; the appellant himself
- He relied on four AI-generated cases that were later found not to exist
- No sanction imposed; the tribunal granted an adjournment and recorded the names
- UK First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)
- 2026; the appellant was self-represented and the tribunal noted it attached no blame
Caught, not sanctioned
An attorney filed a legal document created using generative AI, and the court addressed the filing.
In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · PA
pacourts.us ↗
The file →
- In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, an attorney filed a legal document created using generative AI.
- The page does not state any hallucinated citations or identify a named attorney or firm.
- No sanction amount or sanction type is given on the page.
- The court is the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania.
- The page gives no date, AI tool, or quoted judicial reasoning.
Referred to the bar
The court inferred AI use from the drafting pattern after a brief cited non-existent rulings, and it referred the matter to the bar association.
Acevedo, Gerardo Gabriel v. Cáceres Mareco, Willian Arsenio (motor vehicle damages with injury or death) · Chamber I of the Civil and Commercial Court of Morón
inplp.com ↗
The file →
- Acevedo, Gerardo Gabriel v. Cáceres Mareco, Willian Arsenio (motor vehicle damages with injury or death)
- The submission referenced non-existent rulings and inaccurate quotations.
- No direct disciplinary measure was imposed; the court notified the bar association.
- Chamber I of the Civil and Commercial Court of Morón, Argentina.
- The article says AI use was inferred from distinctive drafting patterns.
Referred to the bar
Lawyers filed briefs with non-existent rulings, declined to confirm or deny AI use, and the court notified the bar association rather than discipline them.
M.J.L. v. Peugeot Citroën Argentina S.A. et al. (summary proceeding) · Civil, Commercial, Family, and Mining Appeals Chamber of General Roca
inplp.com ↗
The file →
- M.J.L. v. Peugeot Citroën Argentina S.A. et al. (summary proceeding)
- The filings contained citations that proved fabricated or materially inaccurate.
- The court imposed no direct discipline but referred the matter to the bar association.
- Civil, Commercial, Family, and Mining Appeals Chamber of General Roca, Argentina.
- The attorneys declined to confirm or deny AI use in the contested filings.
Referred to the bar
Counsel admitted using AI to draft briefs with non-existent citations, and the court responded by verifying the authorities and notifying the bar association.
Giacomino, César Adrián et al. v. Monserrat, Facundo Damián et al. (damages) · Chamber II of the Civil and Commercial Court of Rosario
inplp.com ↗
The file →
- Giacomino, César Adrián et al. v. Monserrat, Facundo Damián et al. (damages)
- Counsel used AI to construct and bolster legal arguments with fictitious or erroneous citations.
- No direct discipline was imposed; the court notified the bar association.
- Chamber II of the Civil and Commercial Court of Rosario, Argentina.
- The article says the lawyer openly acknowledged AI use and the court sought verification of the cited authorities.
Fined
Pro se defendants filed a reply brief containing hallucinated authority; the court struck the brief and awarded attorney fees.
BKA Holdings v. Sam · Illinois appellate court · IL
ripslawlibrarian.wordpress.com ↗
The file →
- BKA Holdings v. Sam involved pro se defendants.
- Their reply brief contained hallucinated authority.
- The court struck the brief and awarded attorney fees.
- Illinois appellate court; no judge is named.
- The plaintiff also filed a motion for sanctions and a fee statement.
Caught, not sanctioned
Similar AI-citation misconduct occurred, but the court declined sanctions because the disciplinary commission was already reviewing the misconduct and the attorney was surrendering his law license.
In re R.L. · IL
ripslawlibrarian.wordpress.com ↗
The file →
- In re R.L. is the final Illinois appellate case discussed.
- The attorney’s filing contained similar fabricated or misrepresented citations.
- The court declined sanctions while the disciplinary commission reviewed the conduct.
- Illinois court; no judge is named on the page.
- The attorney was surrendering his law license.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
A relator’s expert submitted a report with AI-generated hallucinations, including fabricated government testimony and fake citations, and the relator withdrew the expert after the court was alerted.
U.S. ex rel. Khoury v. Mountain West Anesthesia LLC · U.S. District Court for the District of Utah · UT
bassberry.com ↗
The file →
- Mountain West Anesthesia FCA case and one of the relator’s experts
- The expert’s report contained AI-generated hallucinations, including fake citations
- The court was alerted and the relator withdrew the expert; sanctions were sought but not imposed on the page
- Utah federal court, Utah
- September 2025; the expert acknowledged using ChatGPT
Caught, not sanctioned
Reeves filed AI-generated or unverified citations and faced discipline over the misuse.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OBA v. REEVES · Reeves · OK
“The careless use of generative artificial intelligence to "save time" by not independently confirming citations is instead a waste of judicial resources and ...”
law.justia.com ↗
The file →
- STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OBA v. REEVES.
- Reeves was disciplined over AI-generated or unverified citations.
- No monetary sanction is stated in the provided text.
- An Oklahoma state proceeding.
- The page says generative AI was used to "save time" without independently confirming citations.
Filing dismissed
The Oregon Supreme Court dismissed a petition that contained false AI-generated legal citations.
In re Hollis · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
opb.org ↗
The file →
- In re Hollis; the petition was dismissed.
- The filing contained false AI-generated legal citations.
- Sanction type: dismissal; no amount stated.
- Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon.
- June 6, 2026 OPB article; the court said it was the first time it had addressed AI legal fabrications.
Fined
$14K
Murphy was part of the briefing that contained fake cases and fabricated citations; the court ordered him to pay $14,000 in additional attorney fees.
Couvrette v. [not stated in page] · Tim Murphy · U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · OR
“In the quickly expanding universe of cases involving sanctions for the misuse of artificial intelligence, this case is a notorious outlier in both degree and volume,”
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
- Couvrette v. [not stated in page] also involved attorney Tim Murphy in a procedural role.
- The attorneys filed three briefs with 15 nonexistent cases and eight fabricated quotations.
- The court ordered Murphy to pay $14,000 in additional attorney fees.
- U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in Oregon.
- Dec. 12 opinion by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke; the page says Murphy understood the sanctions but denied submitting AI-cited briefs.
Fined
$6K
A Mississippi federal judge disqualified the attorneys and fined Wilson $2,500 and Williams $3,500 after both sides misused AI.
Wilson and Williams matter · Wilson; Williams · federal court in Mississippi · MS
reuters.com ↗
The file →
- Wilson and Williams matter; Wilson and Williams were sanctioned
- Both sides misused AI in the lawsuit and the judge disqualified the attorneys
- Wilson was fined $2,500 and Williams was fined $3,500, totaling $6,000
- Federal court in Mississippi
- Date not stated; the article says they were each ordered to pay $1,000
Fined
$4K
The court sanctioned Anderson after concluding AI-fabricated or hallucinated citations required both monetary and non-monetary sanctions for deterrence.
In re Anderson · Anderson · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
vitallaw.com ↗
The file →
- In re Anderson; Anderson was sanctioned.
- The court said AI-fabricated or hallucinated citations warranted sanctions.
- It ordered Anderson to pay $4,000.
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania.
- The court said monetary and non-monetary sanctions were needed to deter Rule 11 violations.
Fined
$2K
The plaintiff filed a reconsideration motion with nonexistent and manufactured citations, and the court imposed a $1,500 sanction and bar referral.
Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC, et al. · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California · CA
sternekessler.com ↗
The file →
- Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC, et al. involved the plaintiff’s counsel.
- The motion cited two nonexistent cases, ten misquoted cases, and twelve unsupported cases.
- The court imposed a $1,500 sanction and referred the order to the State Bar of California.
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California; federal; California.
- The court said the attorney was lying about how she did her work.
Filing dismissed
$4K
The plaintiff’s attorney filed a response brief with fabricated quotes and a nonexistent decision, and the court dismissed the case without prejudice and referred counsel for discipline.
Alexey Dubinin v. Varsenik Papazian · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · FL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Alexey Dubinin v. Varsenik Papazian involved a lawyer.
- The filing included fabricated citations and false quotes.
- The court imposed a costs order of $4,030 and made a bar referral.
- The court was S.D. Florida, in federal court.
- Date: 2025-11-21; the AI tool was not identified.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
A Denver attorney accepted a 90-day suspension after an investigation found he used ChatGPT to help draft a motion containing fabrications.
Unnamed Colorado disciplinary case · Denver attorney · Colorado Supreme Court · CO
“like an idiot”
cronkitenews.azpbs.org ↗
The file →
- Unnamed Colorado disciplinary case; a Denver attorney was sanctioned.
- The attorney denied using AI, but the investigation found ChatGPT helped draft a motion with fabrications.
- He received a 90-day suspension.
- Colorado Supreme Court; Colorado.
- The article gives no date beyond saying the case was recent; it quotes the attorney saying he hadn’t checked the work.
An attorney filed a state court appeal with 21 of 23 quoted citations hallucinated by ChatGPT and was fined $10,000.
California court appeal matter · California court · CA
nbcnews.com ↗
The file →
- An unnamed attorney in California was fined.
- The attorney filed a state court appeal with 21 of 23 quotes hallucinated by ChatGPT.
- The court imposed a $10,000 fine.
- California court; state jurisdiction; location not further specified on the page.
- The article calls it possibly the largest-ever fine over AI fabrications.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
Takefman cited the nonexistent case Hernandez v. Gilbert in two filings, but the court accepted his apology and did not sanction him.
Takefman matter · Earl Takefman · court not named on page · FL
nbcnews.com ↗
The file →
- Earl Takefman was the pro se litigant in a Florida matter.
- He used ChatGPT and cited the imaginary case Hernandez v. Gilbert in two filings.
- The court forced him to explain why he should not be sanctioned, then imposed none.
- Florida; court not named on the page; state jurisdiction.
- The page says the judge admonished him and later accepted his apology.
An appeals court in California fined a lawyer $10,000 after nearly all quotations in the briefs were fabricated with AI tools.
In re: OpenAI, Inc. ChatGPT Litigation · California Court of Appeal · CA
““as a warning””
404media.co ↗
The file →
- An unnamed lawyer was sanctioned in a California appeal.
- The lawyer filed briefs with nearly all legal quotations fabricated through AI tools.
- The court imposed a record $10,000 fine.
- California Court of Appeal, California.
- The page says the lawyer used ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Grok; the date is only given as earlier this month.
Caught, not sanctioned
Kathleen Wilson was sanctioned in a separate bankruptcy case after admitting she submitted filings with AI hallucinations.
Kathleen Wilson · Kathleen Wilson · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana · LA
mississippifreepress.org ↗
The file →
- Kathleen Wilson was sanctioned in a separate case.
- She admitted submitting filings with AI hallucinations.
- The article does not state the sanction type or amount in that case.
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana; Louisiana.
- The page says the sanction happened back in March, but gives no full date or judge quote.
Fined
$9K
Judge Sharion Aycock sanctioned four lawyers after both sides filed briefs citing AI-invented cases, cancelled the trial, and paused the proceedings.
City of Aberdeen fee case · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · MS
““This case presents the Court with an unusual scenario — attorneys for both litigants engaged in similar sanctionable conduct,””
legalcheek.com ↗
The file →
- Contract dispute in the City of Aberdeen fee case before Judge Sharion Aycock.
- Both sides' filings cited cases the court found did not exist after AI research and drafting.
- Four lawyers were sanctioned; the two drafting lawyers were fined $2,500 and $3,500, and the other two were fined $1,000 each.
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
- June 11, 2026; the order said the duty to verify work “is absolute” and “cannot be outsourced to technology or delegated to co-counsel”.
Fined
$1K
An attorney filed a pleading with AI-fabricated citations and quotations, and the court imposed a $1,000 fine plus mandatory CLE training on AI.
Kaur v. Desso · U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York · NY
“the need to check whether the assertions and quotations generated were accurate trumps all.”
thomsonreuters.com ↗
The file →
- Kaur v. Desso involved the plaintiff's attorney
- The court found the attorney knew AI tools can hallucinate citations and quotations
- The court imposed a $1,000 fine and ordered CLE training on AI
- U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York
- The court said accuracy checks outweigh pressure to rush the pleading
Referred to the bar
Attorney Felipe Millan filed a brief with hallucinated cases from a freelancer and the court upheld a referral to the state bar for sanctions.
Deghani v. Castro · Felipe Millan · U.S. District Court in New Mexico · NM
““Mr. Millan’s primary grievance is that [the Judge] did not appropriately weigh his good intentions.”
thomsonreuters.com ↗
The file →
- Deghani v. Castro involved attorney Felipe Millan
- A freelance attorney returned a brief with several hallucinated cases that Millan did not check
- The court upheld a referral to the state bar for sanctions
- U.S. District Court in New Mexico
- The opinion said Rule 11 sanctions do not require subjective bad faith
Fined
$4K
Williams was also fined and barred after submitting AI-generated filings with fake citations; the article says two local counsel were disqualified and fined too.
Kathryn Williams · Kathryn Williams · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · MS
medium.com ↗
The file →
- Kathryn Williams was sanctioned in the Mississippi case.
- She admitted using AI and submitting unverified citations.
- The court fined her $3,500 and barred her for two years.
- Northern District of Mississippi, federal court.
- June 2026 article; it says she violated her firm's AI policy and misrepresented a scheduling conflict.
Caught, not sanctioned
Defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss with inaccurate citations; the court issued an order to show cause, and the firm denied using AI.
Ringer v. Bank of America, N.A. · Bank of America defense counsel · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · GA
“multiple inaccurate quotations or citations”
triallawyersjournal.com ↗
The file →
- Ringer v. Bank of America, N.A. and defense counsel
- Motion to dismiss contained inaccurate citations and quotations
- No sanction yet; court issued an order to show cause
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
- November 2025 order; firm said Westlaw/manual research was used
Fined
$60K
An Illinois law firm and one of its partners were ordered to pay the opposition law firm after fake citations were found in a filing.
Illinois law firm and one of its partners · IL
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- An Illinois law firm and one of its partners were sanctioned.
- They were ordered to pay after fake citations were found in a filing.
- The combined monetary award was $59,500.
- Illinois; the article names no specific court.
- The date is not given; the article says the payment went to the opposition law firm that uncovered the fake citations.
An attorney and his firm were fined after filing bankruptcy arguments containing four misrepresented or fictitious matters.
Bankruptcy proceedings matter · United States Bankruptcy Court
heplerbroom.com ↗
The file →
- An attorney and his firm were sanctioned in bankruptcy proceedings.
- Their filing cited four misrepresented or fictitious matters.
- The court fined both the attorney and the firm.
- United States Bankruptcy Court; the article gives no judge name.
- The attorney admitted using ChatGPT and not verifying the citations before filing.
Counsel cited the nonexistent Illinois Supreme Court case Mack v. Anderson in a post-trial motion; the judge held a special hearing and sanctions were sought.
Chicago Housing Authority matter · Chicago Housing Authority's counsel · Cook County Circuit Court · IL
heplerbroom.com ↗
The file →
- Chicago Housing Authority counsel cited Mack v. Anderson in a post-trial motion.
- The case did not exist and was generated by AI research.
- Plaintiff sought sanctions after the false citation and related misrepresentations.
- Cook County Circuit Court, Illinois; Judge Thomas Cushing held a special hearing.
- Summer 2025; the attorney said she did not think ChatGPT could create false precedent.
Fined
William T. Panichi was sanctioned at least three times after using generative AI in legal work.
William T. Panichi · William T. Panichi · IL
“After the first, he promised the court, “I’m not going to do it again,” just before getting hit with two more rounds of sanctions a month later.”
nypost.com ↗
The file →
- Illinois attorney William T. Panichi was sanctioned at least three times.
- The page ties the sanctions to generative AI use in legal research.
- The article does not give an amount for the sanctions.
- The page identifies Illinois as the state.
- The page says he promised the court he would not do it again before two more sanctions a month later.
A lawyer blamed Westlaw Precision for hallucinated citations, but the judge found the citations came from a suspended lawyer's work and imposed a $1,000 penalty.
Louisiana court imposed a $1,000 penalty · Louisiana court · LA
arstechnica.com ↗
The file →
- Louisiana case involving an unnamed lawyer
- She blamed Westlaw Precision for AI hallucinations in citations
- $1,000 penalty
- Louisiana court, Louisiana
- The judge found she had outsourced the research to a currently suspended lawyer
Warned
Terrance Dixon filed a brief in a sanctions dispute that allegedly used fabricated AI-generated quotations, and Roc Nation asked the court to strike it.
Roc Nation lawsuit · Terrance Dixon · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
reuters.com ↗
The file →
- Roc Nation v. Terrance Dixon in the S.D.N.Y.
- A brief in a sanctions dispute allegedly relied on fabricated quotations.
- Roc Nation asked the court to strike the filing; no sanction is stated on the page.
- Federal court in New York.
- The page says the quotes appeared to be AI-generated, but names no tool or order date.
Referred to the bar
Anthony Sabatini filed briefs with fake and hallucinated citations, and the 11th Circuit referred him for possible discipline.
Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., et al. · Anthony Sabatini · 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals · FL
“Whatever the merits of artificial intelligence, it is no substitute for actual intelligence.”
floridapolitics.com ↗
The file →
- Anthony Sabatini was counsel in the Atlas Air/Flight Services International appeal.
- He filed briefs replete with fake and hallucinated citations.
- The 11th Circuit referred him to its Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct.
- The court sat in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; Judge Britt Grant wrote the opinion.
- The opinion said outsourcing legal work to artificial intelligence software is not competent.
A Toronto lawyer filed AI-generated fake legal cases in a 2025 estates matter and was suspended for six months with $10,000 in costs.
Toronto lawyer · Ontario legal discipline proceedings
thestar.com ↗
The file →
- A Toronto lawyer was sanctioned in an estates matter.
- She submitted fake, AI-generated legal cases.
- She received a six-month suspension and a $10,000 costs order.
- The matter was in Toronto, Ontario.
- The page says she cited ChatGPT and misled the court.
Caught, not sanctioned
One party cited authorities that the court said appeared to be AI 'hallucinations,' but no sanction is reported on the page.
Blinds to Go Inc. c. Blachley · Superior Court of Québec
“Justice Lukasz Granosik noted that the cited authorities appeared to be AI "hallucinations" with no basis in law.”
lazaruslegal.com ↗
The file →
- Blinds to Go Inc. c. Blachley; one of the parties
- Cited authorities appeared to be AI hallucinations
- No sanction is stated on the page
- Superior Court of Québec
- 2025; Justice Lukasz Granosik made the observation
The litigant filed submissions with fictitious authorities and inaccurate code references, and the court issued only a warning.
Droit de la famille — 251792 · Superior Court of Québec
lazaruslegal.com ↗
The file →
- Droit de la famille — 251792; the litigant
- Submissions used ChatGPT and cited decisions that did not exist
- Warning only, with no monetary penalty
- Superior Court of Québec
- 2025; the court warned repeated conduct could become abuse of process
The plaintiff filed AI-prepared pleadings with fictitious legal authorities and was ordered to pay $500 in compensation.
Kalala c. Coopérative d'habitation La Fraternité Micheloise · Superior Court of Québec
lazaruslegal.com ↗
The file →
- Kalala c. Coopérative d'habitation La Fraternité Micheloise; the plaintiff
- The pleadings contained fictitious authorities and wrong Civil Code provisions
- Monetary sanction of $500 in compensation
- Superior Court of Québec
- 2025; the plaintiff acknowledged using ChatGPT
Fined
$750
A party filed AI-assisted pleadings containing fictitious legal authorities, and the court ordered that party to pay $750.
Bourse de l’Immobilier Multilogements inc. c. Lanthier · Superior Court of Québec
lazaruslegal.com ↗
The file →
- Bourse de l’Immobilier Multilogements inc. c. Lanthier; the party
- AI-assisted pleadings contained fictitious legal authorities
- Monetary sanction of $750
- Superior Court of Québec
- 2025; the court said fabricated authorities are a serious procedural breach
Caught, not sanctioned
An application contained hallucinated citations from generative AI during editing and review, and the page does not state any sanction.
355 Conn.
jud.ct.gov ↗
The file →
- 355 Conn. was the matter named on the page.
- The applications included citations that were hallucinated.
- Generative AI was used during the editing and review process.
- The page does not report a sanction or sanction amount.
- No court, judge, date, or specific citations are given on the page.
Warned
Copilot
2026-08-01
Paul Held cited fake cases in court papers, and the South Carolina bankruptcy court ordered him to complete continuing legal education, including AI ethics training.
Paul Held · Paul Held · South Carolina bankruptcy court · SC
“from haste and a naive understanding of the technology”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Paul Held, a solo practitioner, was sanctioned by the South Carolina bankruptcy court.
- He cited fake cases in court papers after AI use.
- The court ordered continuing legal education including AI ethics training.
- The sanction was issued in South Carolina bankruptcy court.
- The article says the citations generated by Microsoft Copilot came from haste and a naive understanding of the technology.
Fined
$500
2026-07-30
Dean Kajioka filed a habeas reply with a hallucinated citation; Judge Monica Trujillo struck the document and imposed $500 in sanctions.
Robert Schwieger · Dean Kajioka · Regional Justice Center; District Judge Monica Trujillo · NV
“AI was misused”
Cases that don't exist
- Evans v. State, 123 Nev. 117, 159 P.3d 438 (2007)
govtech.com ↗
The file →
- Dean Kajioka represented Robert Schwieger in the Piero’s bombing case.
- Prosecutors said his reply brief was largely created using AI and cited a nonexistent case.
- They sought sanctions and to strike the brief.
- The matter was in Nevada state court before District Judge Monica Trujillo.
- The article says the filing cited 'Evans v. State, 123 Nev. 117, 159 P.3d 438 (2007),' which prosecutors could not find.
Reprimanded
2026-07-30
A lawyer copied non-existent and incorrect case law from an AI tool into two tenancy cases, and the Disciplinary Board in ’s-Hertogenbosch reprimanded the lawyer.
Reprimand after AI use in tenancy cases · Disciplinary Board in ’s-Hertogenbosch
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
- A lawyer in two tenancy cases was reprimanded.
- The lawyer copied non-existent and incorrect case law from an AI tool.
- The sanction was a reprimand.
- Disciplinary Board in ’s-Hertogenbosch.
- 30 July 2026; the lawyer had not checked the generated sources.
Fined
$15K
ChatGPT
2026-07-28
Mason Cole filed briefs with false statutory quotations and case citations, and the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District fined him for each false citation and quotation.
Mason Cole · Mason Cole of Cole Sadkin · Illinois Appellate Court for the First District · IL
“"This is unacceptable," the appeals court said.”
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
- Mason Cole of Cole Sadkin was sanctioned.
- He filed briefs containing false statutory quotations, false case citations and improper facts.
- The court imposed a $15,000 fine, $1,500 for each false citation and quotation.
- Illinois Appellate Court for the First District, Illinois.
- July 28 opinion; Cole said he used a premium corporate subscription of ChatGPT and cross-referenced with LexisNexis.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-07-28
A filing in Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2143 v. Robibaro cited a fictitious case, and the Condominium Authority Tribunal of Ontario flagged the fake citation.
Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2143 v. Robibaro · Condominium Authority Tribunal of Ontario
Cases that don't exist
- Waterloo Standard Condominium Corporation No. 697 v. Bugeja (Ontario Superior Court)
courtready.ca ↗
The file →
- Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2143 v. Robibaro involved a fictitious citation.
- The filing cited Waterloo Standard Condominium Corporation No. 697 v. Bugeja as real authority.
- The tribunal flagged the citation as fictitious; no sanction is stated on the page.
- Condominium Authority Tribunal of Ontario; Ontario.
- 2026-07-28; the page gives the specific fake citation but no AI tool or judge quote.
Fined
$3K
ChatGPT
2026-07-24
A plaintiff's attorney filed multiple court submissions with dozens of AI-generated fake citations and quotations and did not correct them; the judge imposed a $3,000 sanction.
Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · WA
“tantamount to bad faith”
law360.com ↗
The file →
- A plaintiff's attorney in Tiffany M. Cartwright was sanctioned.
- She submitted multiple filings with dozens of fake citations and quotations generated by AI platforms.
- The court imposed a $3,000 monetary sanction.
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Washington.
- July 24, 2026; the judge called the conduct 'tantamount to bad faith.'
Fined
$1
ChatGPT
2026-07-22
A self-represented litigant used ChatGPT to file fabricated citations and received higher costs for AI misuse.
Asif v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship · FedCFam
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Asif v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; a pro se litigant was sanctioned.
- The filing contained ChatGPT-fabricated case law citations.
- The court ordered higher costs because of AI misuse.
- FedCFam, Australia.
- 22 July 2026; the page lists the penalty as 1 AUD.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-07-21
Both sides filed briefs with factitious citations and misrepresentations of precedent, and the court struck the objections and related filings.
Evans v. Robertson (4) · E.D. Mich. · MI
“The Court ruled that even a single factitious citation violates its orders and justifies striking filings.”
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Evans v. Robertson (4); both plaintiff and defendant filings were implicated
- Briefs contained factitious citations and misrepresentations of precedent
- The court struck the objections and related filings
- E.D. Michigan, federal court
- 2026-07-21; prior sanctions were reiterated and further violations were warned against
Warned
2026-07-21
A lawyer submitted AI-generated or altered authorities and was admonished in open court.
以非药品冒充药品案 · DC Yichang City (Hubei)
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- 以非药品冒充药品案; a lawyer was sanctioned.
- The defense materials included fabricated and altered legal authorities.
- The court admonished the lawyer in open court.
- DC Yichang City (Hubei), China.
- 21 July 2026; the page says an assistant used an AI tool and the lawyer failed to verify it.
Suspension
$10K
ChatGPT
2026-07-17
The tribunal temporarily suspended Lee’s law license after finding she filed a factum with AI-generated non-existent case law and lied about using ChatGPT.
Mary Hyun-Sook Lee · Mary Hyun-Sook Lee (also known as Jisuh Lee) · Law Society Tribunal · ON
“It should go without saying that it is the lawyer’s duty to read cases before submitting them to a court as precedential authorities.”
lawtimesnews.com ↗
The file →
- Mary Hyun-Sook Lee, also known as Jisuh Lee, was temporarily suspended by the Law Society Tribunal.
- She relied on a factum containing non-existent or irrelevant case law generated by an AI tool.
- The tribunal also ordered her to pay $10,000 to the Law Society of Ontario.
- The matter was before the Law Society Tribunal in Ontario, Canada.
- On July 17, 2026, the tribunal said she lied about not using ChatGPT and had failed to act with honour and integrity.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-07-16
A DOJ lawyer filed a response citing a nonexistent Sixth Circuit case; Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou chastised the filing but imposed no sanctions.
Daghra v. Hinkley · Carolyn Almassian · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan · MI
““It should be obvious that any attorney who uses AI must scrupulously review its work product to ensure that the cited cases exist and that the citations accurately and fairly represent the underlying case law,””
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Daghra v. Hinkley; DOJ lawyer Carolyn Almassian was tied to the filing.
- The response cited a nonexistent Sixth Circuit case and was said to likely use generative AI.
- Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou did not sanction the government.
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
- 7/16/26; the judge warned future filings must not include nonexistent case law.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-07-15
A pro se appellant filed a brief with false AI-hallucinated citations and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed without reaching the merits.
In Re Estate of Acciavatti · Kotchka · Arizona Court of Appeals · AZ
“Reliance on Gen-AI does not excuse or ease this requirement.”
mvclawgroup.com ↗
The file →
- Kotchka, a pro se appellant, filed a brief with false AI-hallucinated cites.
- He relied on Gen-AI and did not independently verify the citations.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s order and did not consider the appeal on the merits.
- Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona.
- The page quotes the court saying reliance on Gen-AI does not excuse the filing requirement.
Referred to the bar
GPT-3.5
2026-07-15
A lawyer filed AI-fabricated case law, and the court referred the matter to the bar.
Minhye Park v. Hon. Barrington D. Parker, et al. · S.D. New York · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Minhye Park v. Hon. Barrington D. Parker, et al.; lawyer not named on the page.
- The filing used GPT-3.5 and contained fabricated case law.
- The court issued a bar referral.
- S.D. New York; federal court in New York.
- 2026-07-15; the page says the AI use was by a lawyer.
Caught, not sanctioned
$30K
Westlaw Precision
2026-07-14
A lawyer filed fabricated case law, and the court imposed a CLE sanction, civil contempt, and an adverse costs order.
In re Rosslyn2016, LLC, et al. · S.D. Texas (Bankruptcy) · TX
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- In re Rosslyn2016, LLC, et al.; lawyer not named on the page.
- The filing used Westlaw Precision and contained fabricated case law and misrepresented case law.
- The court ordered CLE, civil contempt, and an adverse costs order totaling $29,877.
- S.D. Texas (Bankruptcy); federal bankruptcy court in Texas.
- 2026-07-14; the page flags a disputed vendor claim.
Referred to the bar
2026-07-10
A lawyer filed fabricated and false-quote citations, and the court partly struck the brief, imposed adverse costs, and referred the matter to the bar.
Marion Parnell, Jr. v. Florida Department of Corrections · 11th Cir. CA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Marion Parnell, Jr. v. Florida Department of Corrections; lawyer not named on the page.
- The filing used fabricated case law and false quotes.
- The court partly struck the brief, imposed adverse costs, and made a bar referral.
- 11th Cir. CA; federal appellate court.
- 2026-07-10; the page gives no AI tool name.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-07-08
The CPS filed extradition submissions containing two nonexistent authorities, likely from AI, and the court identified a failure to verify the document.
Tobosaru and Tofan · High Court
“the critical failing as the fact that the reviewing lawyer did not properly check the accuracy of the document before it was filed and served”
searchthe.law ↗
The file →
- Tobosaru and Tofan is the named case.
- Two cited authorities in the CPS’s submissions did not exist.
- The CPS said the citations were likely from artificial intelligence.
- The court was the High Court in London.
- Decided 8 July 2026; the article says the operative cause was human error in failing to verify.
Reprimanded
ChatGPT
2026-07-07
The Connecticut Supreme Court found seven ChatGPT-caused filing errors by a GLG Law LLC attorney and ordered continuing legal education, finding negligence rather than intent to mislead.
TOV Realty, LLC v. Angel Suarez et al. / Kosel Equity, LLC v. Mark MacGregor et al. · Ian G. Gottlieb; GLG Law LLC · Connecticut Supreme Court · CT
“why they should not be sanctioned for misrepresenting “the law through the use of generative artificial intelligence.””
law360.com ↗
The file →
- GLG Law LLC attorney Logan Vance was the subject of the order.
- Seven filing errors were caused by ChatGPT, according to the court.
- The court ordered continuing legal education, not money.
- Connecticut Supreme Court, Connecticut.
- August 3, 2026; the court found negligence in using new technology, not an intent to deceive.
Fined
$10K
2026-07-02
An AI-assisted brief filed in a civil appeal contained fabricated citations and inaccurate quotations, and the court imposed $10,500 in sanctions on the attorney and his firm.
Michael Sanders · Michael Sanders; Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff PLLC · Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, Second Department · NY
“Sanders submitted a brief “prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence, containing citations to nonexistent cases, fictitious purported Court of Appeals quotations wholly contrary to actual law, and misrepresentations about what certain real cases actually held or decided,” LaSalle wrote.”
minnlawyer.com ↗
The file →
- Michael Sanders and Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff PLLC were sanctioned.
- Sanders filed a brief with nonexistent citations and inaccurate quotations generated during AI-assisted research.
- The court ordered $10,500 total: $8,000 from Sanders and $2,500 from his firm.
- Appellate Division, Second Department, New York state court in Rochester.
- Decision reported July 2, 2026; Presiding Justice Hector D. LaSalle noted possible Attorney Grievance Committee review.
An Illinois attorney admitted using ChatGPT in a response brief filed July 2, and the court said the brief also contained misstatements of law.
Ill. Appeals Court Says It Hopes Higher Fine Will Deter AI Hallucinations · IL
law.com ↗
The file →
- Illinois appeals-court matter about hallucinated citations.
- The attorney admitted using a 'premier corporate subscription of ChatGPT' in a response brief.
- The court said the brief also included misstatements of law.
- Illinois Appeals Court.
- The response brief was filed July 2, 2026; the article says the court hoped a higher fine would deter AI hallucinations.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-07-01
Counsel filed a brief with fictitious citations and a corrected brief that kept the fabricated legal synthesis; the court ordered the lawyer and firm to show cause.
Leiske v. Kidd · Richard P. Rollo; Richards, Layton & Finger · Delaware Court of Chancery · DE
“"Counsel cannot discharge those obligations by relying on a paralegal, much less on an artificial intelligence program."”
Cases that don't exist
- Perconti v. Thornton Oil Corp.
litigationsentinel.com ↗
The file →
- Leiske v. Kidd involved Richard P. Rollo and Richards, Layton & Finger.
- The brief used a GenAI tool, then was corrected but still kept the false legal synthesis.
- Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will ordered them to show cause; no sanction amount was imposed yet.
- Delaware Court of Chancery, Wilmington, Delaware.
- July 1, 2026; the court said counsel cannot rely on a paralegal or AI to discharge obligations.
Warned
2026-07-01
The applicant relied on non-existent evidence and the court warned that AI chatbots are not legal advisors.
Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd · Federal Circuit and Family Court
“AI is not a legal advisor, it owes no duty to the Court or the administration of justice and owes no duty to act in the best interests of [the applicant] or to observe regulatory or ethical standards, including in its engagement with other practitioners and parties.”
hallandwilcox.com.au ↗
The file →
- Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd involved an applicant who relied on evidence that did not exist.
- The court described the dispute as a cautionary tale about AI-powered chatbots masquerading as legal advisors.
- The court issued a warning rather than a monetary penalty.
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia; federal jurisdiction; Australia.
- 1 July 2026; the court said AI owed no duty to the court or administration of justice.
Fined
$6K
ChatGPT
2026-07-01
Thomas Nield used ChatGPT to research a Chapter 13 issue and filed briefs with nonexistent cases and quotes; Judge Michael Slade fined him $5,500.
Thomas Nield · Thomas Nield · Illinois bankruptcy court · IL
“The next lawyer who does the same thing is warned that he or she will likely see a more significant penalty.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Thomas Nield, a former Semrad Law Firm bankruptcy attorney, was sanctioned in Illinois.
- He used ChatGPT and filed documents with hallucinated cases and quotes.
- Judge Michael Slade imposed a $5,500 fine.
- The sanction came from the Illinois bankruptcy court.
- The article says he used ChatGPT for an ancillary issue in a Chapter 13 case and was terminated in September.
Caught, not sanctioned
OpenLaw
2026-06-25
Hilary B. Miller filed two briefs with misstated holdings, erroneous citations, and fabricated quotes, and Judge Vernon D. Oliver took sanctions under advisement.
Barteca Intermediate Holdings LLC et al. v. Tacobarn Newtown LLC et al. · Hilary B. Miller · U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · CT
“"Rule 11 is clear," Judge Oliver said, referring to a federal civil procedure rule that requires lawyers to ensure their arguments are supported by current law or a good-faith basis for modifying current law.”
law360.com ↗
The file →
- Barteca Intermediate Holdings LLC et al. v. Tacobarn Newtown LLC et al.; Hilary B. Miller
- Miller filed two briefs with misstated holdings and erroneous citations after using AI research tools
- Judge Oliver did not immediately sanction him and took the matter under advisement
- U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut in Connecticut
- June 25, 2026; the briefs also contained fabricated quotes and 16 total citation errors
Fined
$11K
2026-06-23
A lawyer filed an appellate brief with fake case citations and misstatements of law, and the court sanctioned him and his firm.
Landberg v. City of New York · Appellate Division, Second Department · NY
“However, [Counsel]'s decision not to be honest with the Court during oral argument also demonstrated his professional immaturity, arrogance, and profound lack of respect for the judicial system.”
secondcircuitcivilrights.blogspot.com ↗
The file →
- Landberg v. City of New York involved a lawyer and his firm.
- They submitted an appellate brief containing fake case citations and misstatements.
- The court imposed $11,000 in sanctions total.
- Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
- Decided June 23, 2026; the page says the lawyer used AI-assisted research tools but not which one.
Referred to the bar
2026-06-22
A lawyer filed fabricated case law, and the court referred the matter to the bar.
FHMC, LLC et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. · Jesse Schaefer · CA Arizona (1d) · AZ
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- FHMC, LLC et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc.; lawyer not named on the page.
- The filing contained fabricated case law.
- The court issued a bar referral.
- CA Arizona (1d); state appellate court in Arizona.
- 2026-06-22; the page gives no AI tool name.
Fined
$2K
2026-06-22
A Pennsylvania plaintiffs lawyer filed briefs with AI-generated hallucinated citations and was fined $1,500 and suspended from the court for six months.
Brian Kent · Brian Kent · U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania · PA
law.com ↗
The file →
- Brian Kent, a Pennsylvania plaintiffs attorney, was sanctioned by a federal court in Pennsylvania.
- He filed briefs containing AI-generated hallucinated citations.
- The court ordered a $1,500 penalty and a six-month suspension.
- The matter was in federal court in Pennsylvania.
- The article says the errors were inadvertent and tool-driven.
Fined
$31K
Grok
2026-06-17
Shahryar Mazaheri used AI to draft court filings containing fake and irrelevant citations, and the tribunal ordered him to pay $31,150 in costs.
Mazaheri v Law Society of Ontario, 2026 ONLSTH 112 (CanLII) · Shahryar Mazaheri · Law Society Tribunal of Ontario · ON
“"But unlike a human, a large language model does not appreciate nuance or exercise judgment or use a moral compass when writing. It just does calculations, and then puts words in the order dictated by statistical probabilities. The calculations are impressive – large volumes of authoritative-sounding text are generated in seconds or minutes. But they are just calculations. And the product only reads or sounds like text written by humans. It isn't the same."”
lawtimesnews.com ↗
The file →
- Mazaheri v. Law Society of Ontario involved Shahryar Mazaheri.
- He used AI to prepare a factum, supplementary factum, affidavit, and supplementary affidavit without checking the output.
- The tribunal ordered costs of $31,150 to the Law Society of Ontario.
- The decision was by the Law Society Tribunal in Ontario, Canada.
- The article says the AI output included citations to cases that don’t exist and real cases irrelevant to the points made.
Fined
2026-06-17
Plaintiff's counsel filed briefs relying on fabricated and unsupported cases generated by AI, and the court remanded for a damages determination against counsel personally.
BARBER v. Ascension Providence Hospital, Defendant · Ronnie Cromer Jr · Court of Appeals of Michigan · MI
caselaw.findlaw.com ↗
The file →
- BARBER v. Ascension Providence Hospital, Defendant; plaintiff's counsel
- Counsel relied on AI-generated fabricated and unsupported legal authority in trial and on appeal
- Court affirmed but remanded for defendant's actual damages and expenses to be paid by counsel personally
- Court of Appeals of Michigan, Michigan
- Decided June 17, 2026; counsel used artificial intelligence without adequate verification
Warned
2026-06-16
A lawyer filed fabricated and false-quote case law, and the court issued a warning.
K.W. v. Ringwood Board of Education · D. New Jersey · NJ
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- K.W. v. Ringwood Board of Education; lawyer not named on the page.
- The filing used fabricated case law and false quotes, plus misrepresented case law.
- The court issued a warning.
- D. New Jersey; federal court in New Jersey.
- 2026-06-16; the page says an order to explain was available.
Fined
2026-06-11
Attorneys filed a brief with fabricated case citations and quotations, and the California Court of Appeal upheld sanctions.
Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing · California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District · CA
“The trial court described the filing as containing “nonexistent citations” and “fictitious quotations,” ultimately imposing sanctions under California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7.”
eminentdomainreport.com ↗
The file →
- Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing involved attorneys sanctioned for a brief.
- The brief contained fabricated case citations and quotations with hallmarks of generative AI.
- Sanctions were imposed under California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 and upheld on appeal.
- Court of Appeal, First District, California.
- June 11, 2026; the article says the attorneys failed to independently verify authorities before filing.
Fined
$5K
Copilot
2026-06-11
Ginsburg filed a brief with a fake case, fake quotes, and incorrect legal propositions, and the court imposed sanctions and struck the response.
McCormick v. Texakoma Financial, Inc. · Amy L.B. Ginsburg · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas · TX
“If someone—even an intern—gets the case name, number, year, and quotation wrong, they are not struggling with research or citation formatting. They are struggling with honesty.”
tcpaworld.com ↗
The file →
- McCormick v. Texakoma Financial, Inc. against Amy L.B. Ginsburg
- Brief contained a fake case, fake quotes, and incorrect legal propositions
- Court ordered a $5,000 penalty and struck the response
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texas
- June 11, 2026; court also ordered publication, CLE, and future verification certification
Filing dismissed
LegalAI
2026-06-05
A legal filing in Oregon contained fictitious cases and quotes apparently generated by AI tools, leading to dismissal of the petition.
Oregon Supreme Court petition dismissal for false AI-generated citations · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
Filing dismissed
LegalAI
2026-06-05
The court dismissed a mandamus petition after relators filed supporting documents with nonexistent cases and fabricated quotes generated by LegalAI.
Aldridge v. Tussing · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
“The injection of false precedent undermines the integrity of the proceedings. Doing it repeatedly, and in response to a show cause order, warrants imposition of a meaningful sanction.”
apps.oregon.gov ↗
The file →
- Aldridge v. Tussing involved relators who filed a mandamus petition with fabricated AI-generated citations and quotes.
- The Oregon Supreme Court struck the petition and the response, then dismissed the proceeding entirely.
- Sanction type: dismissal; no monetary amount was imposed in this order.
- Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon; state court sanction issued on 2026-06-05.
- The fabrications were attributed to LegalAI, and the court said repeated false precedent warranted a meaningful sanction.
Fined
$500
2026-06-05
The court struck a response with fictitious authorities after the respondent admitted using AI, and allowed amendment conditioned on a $500 sanction.
Witkin v. McGreevy · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
apps.oregon.gov ↗
The file →
- Witkin v. McGreevy involved a respondent who filed a response with fictitious authorities and inaccurate legal arguments.
- The respondent admitted using AI, but fully complied with the court's show-cause order and clarified each citation.
- Sanction type: monetary fine of $500 conditioned on filing an amended response.
- Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon; state court order issued on 2026-06-05.
- The court granted leave to amend after the respondent agreed to the $500 sanction; the AI tool was not named.
Fined
$5K
Westlaw Precision
2026-06-03
Two Orange County immigration attorneys filed a brief with nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations; the Ninth Circuit suspended each for six months and fined each $2,500.
Lnu v. Blanche · Mike Singh Sethi; Sethi Law Group; William Rounds; Bill Rounds Attorney at Law PC · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
“We issue this disciplinary order, and explain our reasoning at some length, as a warning to the members of this Court's bar: be aware of the risks of overreliance on generative AI, read everything cited in a court filing—whether drafted by generative AI or not—and disclose quickly and transparently generative AI hallucinations that are inadvertently included in court filings….”
Cases that don't exist
- Eduardo v. Garland, 28 F.4th 742 (9th Cir. 2022)
- Lay v. Holder, 729 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2013)
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
- LNU v. Blanche; attorney Mike Singh Sethi was sanctioned with co-counsel William Rounds.
- He filed briefs with nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations, later calling them typographical errors.
- The Ninth Circuit suspended him from practice before the court for six months.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Judge Richard Paez, Carlos Bea, and Danielle Forrest.
- The order said generative AI hallucinations had been included in filings and warned lawyers to read every citation.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-06-03
The Québec Superior Court set aside a labour arbitrator’s decision after finding the arbitrator used AI to draft reasons containing false, non-existent authorities.
Association des ressources intermédiaires d'hébergement du Québec (ARIHQ) c. Santé Québec - Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal · Michel Jeanniot · Québec Superior Court
“Material parts of the arbitrator’s reasons relied on false references to authorities.”
canliiconnects.org ↗
The file →
- Association des ressources intermédiaires d'hébergement du Québec (ARIHQ) c. Santé Québec - Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal; labour arbitrator's decision was challenged
- The arbitrator’s reasons were written with the assistance of artificial intelligence and contained false references to authorities
- The court set aside the decision; no monetary sanction is stated
- Québec Superior Court, Québec
- June 3, 2026; the court described the references as non-existent and “delusional”
Fined
$10K
2026-06-01
A non-attorney filed AI-generated legal arguments with non-existent cases; the Missouri Court of Appeals fined him $10,000 in the opposing party’s attorney’s fees.
Boatner v. Hickerson · Missouri Court of Appeals · MO
carnahanevans.com ↗
The file →
- Boatner v. Hickerson involved a non-attorney using AI-generated arguments.
- Of six cited cases, four did not exist and two were only mentioned by name.
- The court sanctioned him $10,000 in the opposing party’s attorney’s fees.
- Missouri Court of Appeals, Missouri.
- The article says the AI again made up several non-existent cases.
Fined
$10K
2026-06-01
The Second Department sanctioned an attorney $8,000 and his firm $2,500 for an appellate brief with fictitious Court of Appeals quotations.
Landberg v. City of New York · New York Appellate Division, Second Department · NY
execute.law ↗
The file →
- Landberg v. City of New York; an attorney and his firm were sanctioned
- An appellate brief included fictitious Court of Appeals quotations
- The court imposed $8,000 on the attorney and $2,500 on the firm
- Second Department, New York appellate court
- June 2026; the matter was flagged for the grievance committee
Fined
$5K
2026-06-01
Counsel filed appellate briefs with hallucinated quotations, citations, and record-contradicted facts; the Seventh Circuit denied the petition and imposed a $5,000 Rule 46(c) sanction.
Heriberto Perez-Castillo v. Todd W. Blanche · Abdullah Salah · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
casemine.com ↗
The file →
- Heriberto Perez-Castillo v. Todd W. Blanche; attorney Abdullah Salah was sanctioned.
- He filed two briefs containing hallucinated quotations/citations and record-contradicted facts.
- The Seventh Circuit imposed a $5,000 fine under Fed. R. App. P. 46(c).
- United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; federal; Illinois.
- June 1, 2026; the court said he did not review either brief for accuracy.
Referred to the bar
2026-05-28
A lawyer filed fabricated case citations and was ordered to self-report to the Law Society of Alberta.
KH (Re) · KH · Alberta CJ · AB
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- KH (Re) involved a lawyer.
- The filing contained fabricated case citations.
- The court ordered self-reporting to the Law Society of Alberta.
- The court was Alberta CJ in Canada.
- Date: 2026-05-28; the AI source was unidentified.
Fined
$250
2026-05-27
A pro se father cited one nonexistent case using generative AI, and the court sanctioned him $250.
Matter of Julien v. Arthur · Appellate Division, Second Department · NY
“The pro se litigant cited only one nonexistent case, but the court ruled that that was sufficient to warrant the imposition of a sanction.”
marshalldennehey.com ↗
The file →
- Matter of Julien v. Arthur involved a pro se litigant.
- He cited one nonexistent case with generative AI.
- The court imposed a $250 sanction.
- Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
- Decision dated May 27, 2026; the court noted it was only a single AI hallucination.
Referred to the bar
2026-05-27
The court said O'Hara's petition appeared AI-generated, cited non-existent caselaw, and referred the matter to The Florida Bar for sanctions.
Eclectic Synergy, LLC v. Mona Seredin the Estate of Alexander Seredin · John Joseph O'Hara of The O'Hara Law Group, P.A · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · FL
“The submission of fictitious or fabricated case law—whether the product of carelessness, misunderstanding, or reliance on generative artificial-intelligence tools—is sanctionable.”
Cases that don't exist
- Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. Masek, 982 So. 2d 1231
- Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607
caselaw.findlaw.com ↗
The file →
- Eclectic Synergy, LLC v. Mona Seredin the Estate of Alexander Seredin; John Joseph O'Hara of The O'Hara Law Group, P.A.
- O'Hara filed a certiorari petition with non-existent or misleading citations.
- The court referred the matter to The Florida Bar; no monetary amount was imposed in this order.
- District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, in Florida.
- Decided May 27, 2026; the court said the petition appeared AI-generated and cited non-existent caselaw.
Referred to the bar
2026-05-22
Pinsent Masons submitted AI-generated fake legal authorities in insolvency proceedings and self-referred the matter to the SRA; the High Court did not hold the lawyers in contempt.
Anthony Malcolm Cork & Anor v Mark Smith · Pinsent Masons LLP · High Court of England and Wales, Chancery Division
“legal professionals bear ultimate responsibility for their work and cannot outsource the process of legal research or of legal reasoning to an AI.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- Anthony Malcolm Cork & Anor v Mark Smith was the case.
- The article says it involved AI misuse by a lawyer.
- The outcome included self-referral to the regulator and public naming.
- High Court of England and Wales, Chancery Division.
- 22 May 2026; the judge said legal professionals cannot outsource research to AI.
Reprimanded
ChatGPT
2026-05-21
H. Gregory Harp filed a response with false quotations attributed to real cases and was sanctioned by Judge Harold D. Mooty III.
Jackie Miller v. Regions Bank · H. Gregory Harp · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · AL
““Lawyers make errors. Competent and ethical lawyers own them””
findlaw.com ↗
The file →
- Jackie Miller v. Regions Bank; attorney H. Gregory Harp
- Harp filed a response with false quotations in support of summary judgment briefing
- He was sanctioned and suspended for six months in the Northern District of Alabama
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Alabama
- May 21, 2026; the court suspected generative AI and Harp later admitted using free ChatGPT for proofreading
Fined
$10K
2026-05-20
The court sanctioned Michael Sanders and his firm for a brief with AI-generated fake citations, nonexistent cases, and misstatements of real law.
Landberg v. City of New York · Michael Sanders; Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff PLLC · Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division · NY
“"It's striking, concerning, disappointing, and saddening to think that members of the bar would forward cases to a court that don't exist, and to think that the lawyers on the other side of that didn’t read it for whatever reason, didn’t check it."”
404media.co ↗
The file →
- Michael Sanders and Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff PLLC were sanctioned.
- Sanders filed a brief containing fake citations and fake quotations from AI-assisted research.
- The court imposed $10,500 total: $8,000 on Sanders and $2,500 on the firm.
- Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Second Department, New York.
- June 26, 2026 article; Sanders said the citations came from hallucinated AI and he failed to verify them.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-05-20
Pro se plaintiffs used AI to draft filings and submitted fabricated legal authority; the court discussed the misconduct but imposed no sanction in this decision.
Torres v. Spraker · Jose Torres and Aidria Torres · Supreme Court, Montgomery County · NY
Cases that don't exist
- Gurpreet Kaur v Desso, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129902
- Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 779 F. Supp. 3d 341, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78895, 2025 WL 1195925
- Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443
nycourts.gov ↗
The file →
- Torres v. Spraker; Jose Torres and Aidria Torres were the parties using AI.
- They admitted using artificial intelligence to draft legal documents and cited no caselaw.
- The court noted AI is not legal authority and discussed fabricated citations.
- Supreme Court, Montgomery County, New York; Judge Rebecca A. Slezak.
- May 20, 2026; the opinion cited Mata and other AI-citation cases, but imposed no sanction here.
Fined
$1K
Claude
2026-05-18
A lawyer filed a brief with Claude-generated fabricated quotes and was fined $1,000 plus ordered to take an AI-assistance course.
Louisiana district court matter · Louisiana district court · LA
“Ignorance of the risks of AI usage is no longer an excuse,”
cebudailynews.inquirer.net ↗
The file →
- Jerry Edwards Jr. sanctioned the lawyer in a Louisiana district court matter.
- The brief contained seven AI-generated quotes attributed to prior rulings that were false or misrepresented.
- The court fined him $1,000 and ordered a three-hour AI-assisted legal practice course.
- Louisiana district court, Louisiana.
- The sanctions order was issued May 18; the lawyer said a clerk had caught errors in an earlier draft and then he used Claude to fix them.
Caught, not sanctioned
Claude
2026-05-15
A motion to quash included Claude-generated phantom quotations, and the lawyers apologized to the court; the page does not report a sanction order.
AFGE v. Trump · Binnall Law Group PLLC; Jason Greaves; Jesse Binnall; Lindsay McKasson · US District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
““While I reviewed the cited cases generally to confirm their applicability, as well as many other cases that I reviewed, I did not double check the quotations and obviously did not read the cited cases carefully,” Greaves wrote.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- AFGE v. Trump involved Binnall Law Group PLLC lawyers.
- Jason Greaves used Claude Console to draft a motion to quash a subpoena.
- The motion included “phantom” quotations, prompting apologies to the court.
- Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California, California.
- Date: 2026-05-15; the page describes the misuse but reports no sanction order.
Warned
2026-05-13
A cited authority could not be located, the reference was disregarded, and the court warned that fabricated authorities generated by AI can lead to sanction.
World Kuk Sool Association, Inc v Alex Paul · not stated
“It is important for parties to be aware that they have a duty not to mislead the tribunal and that the fabrication of authorities (whether intentionally or because references generated through Artificial Intelligence have not been verified) can lead to sanction.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- World Kuk Sool Association, Inc v Alex Paul involved [redacted name].
- A citation was checked and then disregarded after it could not be found.
- The court warned that fabricated authorities can lead to sanction.
- Court not stated on the page.
- 13 May 2026; the court said AI-generated references must be verified.
Warned
2026-05-12
The court said the plaintiff’s filing contained improperly cited case law and ordered a letter on whether generative AI was used.
Powell v. Borough of Bergenfield · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
“Pro se litigants are not shielded from the sanctions offered by Rule 11”
natlawreview.com ↗
The file →
- Powell v. Borough of Bergenfield; a pro se plaintiff was involved
- The filing contained improperly cited case law and may have used generative AI
- The court ordered a letter explaining any AI use and why sanctions should not issue
- District of New Jersey, New Jersey
- Order dated 2026-05-12; the court invoked Rule 11
Fined
$6K
2026-05-11
Blackburn was found in contempt for missing payments on a $6,000 sanction imposed after he filed a brief with a hallucinated AI case citation.
Gardner v. Combs et al. · Tyrone A. Blackburn of T.A. Blackburn PLLC · U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by designation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
“"I am going to hold you in contempt," Judge Gordon said, "but I am going to issue an oral admonition."”
law360.com ↗
The file →
- Gardner v. Combs et al.; Tyrone A. Blackburn of T.A. Blackburn PLLC
- He filed a brief citing a nonexistent AI-generated case and did not verify it.
- Judge Gordon imposed a $6,000 fine, later enforcing it through contempt and an oral admonition.
- U.S. Court of International Trade sitting by designation in the District of New Jersey.
- May 11, 2026; the judge said he could jail Blackburn but chose a warning instead.
Warned
2026-05-06
A litigant in person filed AI-generated submissions with hallucinated authorities, and the tribunal warned that no person has immunity from sanction.
Rafique v HMRC · First-tier Tribunal
“no person has immunity from sanction”
searchthe.law ↗
The file →
- Rafique v HMRC is the named case.
- The submissions were found to be AI-generated with hallucinated authorities.
- The tribunal stated that fabricated authorities cited as genuine are contempt of court.
- The court was the First-tier Tribunal.
- Decided 6 May 2026; the article says it was a warning shot for litigants in person.
Caught, not sanctioned
Claude
2026-05-06
A court filing in the Trump layoffs case contained phantom legal quotations generated by Claude Console, prompting sanctions scrutiny.
Trump layoffs court filing involving phantom legal quotations · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · NY
incidentdatabase.ai ↗
The file →
- Trump layoffs court filing involving phantom legal quotations
- Claude Console generated the false legal quotations in the filing
- The page does not say a sanction was imposed
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
- 2026-05-06; the incident was about fabricated quotations, not citations
Warned
ChatGPT
2026-05-05
Kelly Guagenty filed a brief with AI-caused citation errors, mischaracterizations and an improper quotation; Judge Stacey D. Neumann ordered AI training and new safeguards but no fine.
Jessica Fuller v Hyde School · Karen Guagenty · U.S. District Court for the District of Maine · ME
“Although AI can be a useful aid in research and drafting, its use does not diminish an attorney's nondelegable duties of diligence, candor, and reasonable inquiry.”
habeas.ai ↗
The file →
- FULLER v. HYDE SCHOOL involved Attorney Kelly Guagenty.
- She submitted two filings with AI-generated erroneous legal citations.
- The court imposed non-monetary sanctions.
- United States District Court for the District of Maine, Maine.
- May 5, 2026; counsel said the AI used was either Claude or ChatGPT.
Suspension
2026-05-05
The Georgia Supreme Court suspended Deborah Leslie for six months after she filed briefs with phony AI-generated case law and ordered extra continuing education.
Hannah Payne murder appeal · Deborah Leslie · Supreme Court of Georgia · GA
““In reviewing the trial court’s order denying the motion for a new trial, there are at least five citations to cases that don’t exist, and there’s at least five more citations to cases that do not support the proposition for which they are cited, including three quotations that don’t exist,””
ajc.com ↗
The file →
- Deborah Leslie, a Clayton County assistant district attorney, was sanctioned by the Georgia Supreme Court.
- She filed briefs loaded with phony case law produced with artificial intelligence.
- The court suspended her for six months and required additional continuing education.
- The sanction came from the Georgia Supreme Court in Georgia.
- May 5, 2026; Justice Benjamin Land wrote the opinion and warned Georgia lawyers about AI misuse.
Fined
$1K
2026-05-01
Barsotti filed arguments citing three nonexistent cases; the magistrate fined her $1,000 and ordered an hour of AI-ethics training.
Jessica Barsotti · Jessica Barsotti · U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson · CA
“The Court does not prohibit or oppose the use of artificial intelligence in legal advocacy, so long as counsel independently verifies the accuracy of AI-generated content.”
sfchronicle.com ↗
The file →
- Jessica Barsotti filed arguments in the BART case using three nonexistent cases.
- A federal magistrate found the citations were evidently produced by AI.
- The court fined her $1,000 and ordered one hour of training.
- U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson, federal court in California.
- Ruling this month; the judge said counsel must independently verify AI-generated content.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-04-29
A pro se plaintiff filed a brief with fabricated citations while seeking leave to amend; the court struck the motion for AI errors and procedural violations.
Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Company · D. Ariz. · AZ
“While the use of [generative AI] is not necessarily problematic, the failure to confirm the accuracy of the filing is. ... Plaintiff’s pro se status does not relieve her of this requirement.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
- Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Company involved a pro se plaintiff.
- Her brief included at least two fabricated case citations and an irrelevant real case.
- The court struck the motion from the record.
- D. Ariz., federal court in Arizona.
- April 29, 2026; the court said the filing was not verified for accuracy.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-04-29
A self-represented appellant cited two nonexistent cases and one irrelevant real case; the court treated all issues as waived and affirmed summary judgment.
Nisland Asset Investment, LLC v. Gericke · Iowa Ct. App. · IA
“We do not have a double standard for those represented by counsel and those who are unrepresented – we expect all to follow our procedures. … We have repeatedly stressed that self-represented litigants and attorneys alike have a duty to independently verify the authenticity and veracity of all sources and assertions when relying on artificial intelligence tools to prepare trial or appellate court filings.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
- Nisland Asset Investment, LLC v. Gericke involved a self-represented homeowner.
- Her appellate brief cited two nonexistent cases and one irrelevant real case.
- The court deemed every issue waived and affirmed summary judgment.
- Iowa Court of Appeals, state court in Iowa.
- April 29, 2026; the court emphasized independent verification of AI-assisted sources.
Fined
$2K
Lexis+ AI
2026-04-28
A lawyer using LexisNexis Protégé was sanctioned $2,500 for fabricated case law.
Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services
habeas.ai ↗
The file →
- Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services is identified as a sanctions case.
- The lawyer used LexisNexis Protégé and filed fabricated case law.
- The court imposed a $2,500 sanction.
- The incident was logged on 28 April 2026.
- The page says specialist legal AI tools are now appearing in sanctions data.
Fined
$1K
Westlaw CoCounsel
2026-04-28
A magistrate judge sanctioned Lenden Webb after Webb Law Group filed a brief with a fake citation partly caused by AI use and poor supervision.
Hill v. Workday · Lenden Webb / Webb Law Group · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
vibegraveyard.ai ↗
The file →
- Hill v. Workday involved Lenden Webb and Webb Law Group.
- A discovery filing contained a fake citation caused in part by AI use and lack of supervision.
- The court ordered a $1,001 personal payment and firmwide corrective steps.
- The sanction came from the Northern District of California.
- On 2026-04-28, Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang required CLE and circulation of court materials; the page names Westlaw CoCounsel.
Warned
2026-04-28
Judge Adam B. Abelson threatened sanctions against two self-represented litigants if they kept filing frivolous motions or fabricated legal citations.
Ali Behroz Aziz and Shinkay Aziz matter · U.S. District Court for Maryland · MD
“Although the use of AI tools for legal research or drafting is not inherently improper, Plaintiffs’ avalanche of filings here, whether AI-generated or not, have burdened the Court, advanced frivolous arguments, misstated the record, and fabricated legal authorities,”
thedailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
- Two self-represented litigants, Ali Behroz Aziz and Shinkay Aziz, were warned by Judge Adam B. Abelson.
- Their filings were suspected to be AI-drafted and included fabricated legal authorities.
- The court threatened sanctions if they continued filing frivolous motions or fake citations.
- U.S. District Court for Maryland, federal court in Maryland.
- April 28, 2026; the judge said the filings burdened the court and fabricated legal authorities.
Fined
$5K
Claude
2026-04-27
Raja Rajan was sanctioned $5,000 for filing a brief with AI-generated fabrications and had already been fined $2,500 in the same matter.
Rajan matter · Raja Rajan · US District Court · PA
“any first-year law student knows you have to verify the authority cited, and warned that a third strike would mean referral to Pennsylvania's disciplinary board.”
habeas.ai ↗
The file →
- Raja Rajan was sanctioned in a federal matter in Pennsylvania.
- He filed a brief containing AI-generated fabrications.
- The court imposed a $5,000 sanction, after a prior $2,500 fine in the same case.
- US District Judge Kai Scott issued the order in Pennsylvania.
- Rajan said he could not remember whether he used Claude, ChatGPT or Grok.
Fined
$5K
2026-04-27
Raja Rajan filed an AI-written brief with six false citations, and Judge Kai N. Scott sanctioned him $5,000 after a prior $2,500 sanction.
Raja Rajan matter · Raja Rajan · U.S. District Court (Philadelphia federal court) · NJ
compliancehub.wiki ↗
The file →
- Raja Rajan was sanctioned again for AI hallucinations.
- He used one AI chatbot to draft a brief and another to check citations.
- The court imposed a $5,000 sanction after an earlier $2,500 sanction.
- U.S. District Court (Philadelphia federal court); Judge Kai N. Scott.
- April 27, 2026; the judge warned of a disciplinary referral if it happened again.
Filing dismissed
$17K
2026-04-24
Counsel filed briefs infected with AI hallucinations, and the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and referred the matter to the state bar.
Ibach v. Stewart · Counsel for Laurie Ibach and Mark Stewart · Alabama Supreme Court · AL
“nothing to review”
alabamaworkerscompblawg.com ↗
The file →
- Ibach v. Stewart involved counsel whose briefs were AI-hallucinated.
- The court said the briefs were so infected that it had 'nothing to review.'
- The Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and imposed $17,200 in fees plus a referral.
- Court: Alabama Supreme Court, Alabama.
- Date: 2026-04-24; the case ended with a bar referral.
Referred to the bar
LEAP
2026-04-23
AML Legal filed appeal papers with incorrect legal citations suspected to be AI-generated, and HHJ Grimshaw referred the matter to the regulator.
Rodney v Gee’z Micro Bar & Pitstop · AML Legal; Kossar Qureshi; Mahmood Hussain · His Honour Judge Grimshaw
“Misleading material was placed before the court in terms of mis-cited legal authorities, said to support propositions that they simply did not, when even the most simple of checks would have shown that to not be the case, or shown it to be the case, i.e. that they were incorrect,”
regulationandcomplianceoffice.co.uk ↗
The file →
- Rodney v Gee’z Micro Bar & Pitstop involved AML Legal, Kossar Qureshi, and Mahmood Hussain.
- The firm submitted three documents with incorrect citations suspected to have been produced with generative AI.
- HHJ Grimshaw referred the matter to the regulator; no monetary sanction was stated.
- Court: civil appeal application, West Midlands, England and Wales.
- Date not given; the judge said simple checks would have caught the mis-cited authorities.
Fined
$1
2026-04-22
A lawyer cited fabricated doctrinal work, and the court imposed a one-month suspension and a monetary fine.
Disciplinary proceeding - Rol N°23.322-2025 · Corte Suprema, Tercera Sala
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Disciplinary proceeding - Rol N°23.322-2025
- A lawyer cited fabricated doctrinal work.
- The court imposed a one-month suspension and a monetary fine.
- Corte Suprema, Tercera Sala, Chile.
- 2026-04-22; the page identifies the hallucination as doctrinal work.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
2026-04-22
Sullivan & Cromwell filed an emergency motion with AI hallucinations and inaccurate citations, then apologized and corrected the filing before any sanctions order.
In re: Prince Global Holdings Ltd. · Sullivan & Cromwell LLP · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
reuters.com ↗
The file →
- In re: Prince Global Holdings Ltd.; Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
- A court submission contained fabricated or misquoted case citations from AI hallucinations
- No sanction is stated in the article; the firm apologized
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
- 2026-04-18; the article says the filing was made on April 18 and involved AI hallucinations
Fined
$8K
2026-04-22
Appellant's opening brief used fabricated law from generative AI; the court struck it, denied amendment, and ordered appellant's attorneys to pay respondent's fees.
Williams v. Honl · Abby Shearer · Court of Appeals of Oregon · OR
“The brief on file “contain[ed] fabricated quotations and propositions of law falsely attributed to existing cases.””
caselaw.findlaw.com ↗
The file →
- Williams v. Honl; appellant's attorney Abby Shearer
- Opening brief contained fabricated quotations and propositions of law from AI research
- Court ordered $8,044.25 in attorney fees, not dismissal
- Court of Appeals of Oregon, decided in Oregon
- April 22, 2026; court said the brief had fabricated law and cited generative AI as the cause
Fined
$5K
2026-04-20
Raja Rajan filed court papers with made-up AI-generated case citations; Judge Kai N. Scott imposed a $5,000 sanction and required extra AI-and-ethics CLE.
Bunce v. Visual Tech. Innovations Inc. · Raja Rajan · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
“The judge said the court “remains appalled by Mr. Rajan’s improper conduct.””
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Bunce v. Visual Tech. Innovations Inc.; Raja Rajan of Cherry Hill, NJ
- He used made-up, AI-generated case citations in filings for a second time
- Judge Kai N. Scott fined him $5,000 and ordered additional CLE
- US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
- 2026-04-20; Scott said there was no valid reason for not verifying the citations
Filing dismissed
Centient AI
2026-04-15
A party using Centient AI filed fabricated and misrepresented case citations, and the brief was struck.
Stance Strong and Kinisha Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC d/b/a Popeyes Chicken · CA Illinois (1d) · IL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Stance Strong and Kinisha Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC d/b/a Popeyes Chicken
- A party using Centient AI filed fabricated and misrepresented case citations.
- The court struck the brief.
- CA Illinois (1d), state, Illinois.
- 2026-04-15; the AI tool is named on the page as Centient AI.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-04-13
Joanne Jones filed an appeal using undisclosed generative AI with incorrect citations and references; the Commission dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds and did not take the matter further.
Sentinel Community Services Pty Ltd v Clark Chesaites · Ms Joanne Jones · NSW Personal Injury Commission
“the deployment of undisclosed generative AI has not affected or perverted the result of this application and for this Ms Jones and Sentinel should be grateful”
carternewell.com ↗
The file →
- Sentinel Community Services Pty Ltd v Clark Chesaites involved Ms Joanne Jones.
- Jones used undisclosed generative AI in appeal materials and submissions.
- The Commission did not impose a sanction and dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.
- NSW Personal Injury Commission, New South Wales.
- 13 April 2026; the materials contained incorrect citations and misdated Barden v Walgett Shire Council.
Caught, not sanctioned
$3K
2026-04-09
A brief produced using AI contained citations to nonexistent authorities and fictitious holdings, and the court addressed defendants' request to strike it.
Hulvat v. Gumina · Illinois Appellate Court, Third District · IL
“Robert’s reliance on fictitious authority is a pervasive, nascent, and very serious issue afflicting courts as the use and reliance on generative AI in preparing legal filings becomes more commonplace. … Robert’s self-represented status does not excuse his misuse of AI. … A monetary penalty in this context should impress upon all litigants the caution one must undertake when utilizing AI in brief preparation and the solemnity of filing documents before the court.”
ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net ↗
The file →
- Hulvat v. Gumina involved a brief produced using AI.
- The brief contained citations to nonexistent authorities and fictitious holdings.
- The court considered defendants' request to strike the brief.
- Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, Illinois.
- The page does not name an attorney, firm, date, AI tool, or a sanction amount.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-04-09
A lawyer filed fabricated case citations, and the court addressed the matter in a reported story.
Harry v. Arie Jan · Amsterdam Entreprise Chamber
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Harry v. Arie Jan
- A lawyer filed fabricated case citations.
- The page does not report a sanction in the excerpt shown.
- Amsterdam Entreprise Chamber, Netherlands.
- 2026-04-09; the page says to see the story here.
Fined
2026-04-09
J. Scott Key filed arguments containing citations to nonexistent cases and statutes, and the court sanctioned the misuse.
Daniels v. New York State Department of Health · J. Scott Key · New York state court · NY
govinfo.gov ↗
The file →
- Daniels v. New York State Department of Health; J. Scott Key was sanctioned.
- He filed arguments that contained cites to nonexistent cases and statutes.
- The court imposed a monetary fine, but the amount is not stated in the page.
- New York state court, New York.
- April 9, 2026; the page says the cites were the result of 'AI Hallucinations.'
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-04-09
In a shareholder dispute, a lawyer cited non-existent case law and the Enterprise Chamber noted AI had “run amok”; the case ended in a settlement.
Lawyer blunders at Enterprise Chamber with fictional case law · Enterprise Chamber
“Judges spoke of AI that had “run amok”.”
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
- A lawyer in a shareholder dispute was involved.
- The lawyer cited non-existent case law and corrected filings produced new fictional ECLI numbers.
- The case ended in a settlement and no sanction is stated.
- Enterprise Chamber.
- 9 April 2026; judges said AI had “run amok”.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-04-06
A pro se plaintiff filed motions citing fabricated quotations and a nonexistent proposition; the court struck one motion and denied another.
Hardy v. Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, et al. · E.D. Mich. · MI
“Courts and opposing counsel are burdened by the careless use of AI by pro se filers.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
- Hardy v. Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, et al. involved a pro se filer.
- His motion to consolidate cited fabricated quotations from two real Sixth Circuit opinions.
- The court struck the consolidation motion and denied the motion to compel.
- E.D. Mich., federal court in Michigan.
- April 6, 2026; the court blamed careless AI use by pro se filers.
Fined
Lexis+ AI
2026-04-06
The State Bar Court approved discipline after Khalifeh filed a federal trademark brief with nonexistent and irrelevant AI-assisted citations and failed to disclose generative AI use.
Omid Emile Khalifeh · Omid Emile Khalifeh · State Bar Court · CA
“Courts and clients must be able to trust that the filings attorneys submit are accurate, supported, and compliant with professional standards,”
latimes.com ↗
The file →
- Omid Emile Khalifeh was accused by the State Bar of California.
- He filed an April 2025 federal trademark brief with a nonexistent citation and two irrelevant AI-assisted citations.
- The State Bar Court approved discipline, including probation and a 30-day suspension.
- State Bar Court, California.
- April 6, 2026; he said the brief was informed by Lexis+ AI.
Referred to the bar
2026-04-03
Counsel used a Gen AI platform to draft two briefs with fabricated quotations and misstatements, and the court removed him, denied CJA compensation, and referred him out.
United States v. Farris · Sixth Circuit
“inexcusable transgressions”
nortonrosefulbright.com ↗
The file →
- United States v. Farris; court-appointed counsel was sanctioned
- Two briefs drafted with Gen AI contained fabricated quotations and mischaracterized holdings
- Removal from case, denial of all CJA compensation, and referral
- Sixth Circuit
- 2026; the court credited candor and a clean 40-year record but still found inexcusable transgressions
Caught, not sanctioned
CoCounsel
2026-04-03
A brief prepared using Westlaw’s CoCounsel contained errors, and the Sixth Circuit noted them in a per curiam decision.
U.S. v. Farris · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
ediscoveryllc.com ↗
The file →
- U.S. v. Farris involved a brief prepared using Westlaw’s CoCounsel.
- The court found errors in the brief prepared with the AI tool.
- No sanction is described on the page for this incident.
- Sixth Circuit, federal court.
- Per curiam order dated 2026-04-03; the page says the tool appears to have been used after August 2025.
The Sixth Circuit sanctioned an attorney after briefs generated by Westlaw’s CoCounsel contained fabricated quotations and misrepresented two real cases.
United States v. Farris · an attorney using Westlaw’s CoCounsel · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · KY
“The court held that citing "real legal authorities", as opposed to hallucinations featuring fictitious cases, did not absolve him.”
Cases that don't exist
- United States v. Washington
- United States v. Anthony
redlinedigest.com ↗
The file →
- United States v. Farris involved an attorney using Westlaw’s CoCounsel.
- Briefs generated by the AI contained fabricated quotations and misrepresented the holdings of two real cases.
- The Sixth Circuit sanctioned the attorney.
- The court was the Sixth Circuit, federal appellate court.
- The order was dated Apr. 3, 2026, and involved legal-specific AI.
Reprimanded
2026-03-30
Counsel filed an appellate brief with two non-existent cases and a false quotation; the Seventh Circuit admonished him but declined further sanctions.
Dec v. Mullin · Seventh Circuit
“Whatever AI’s future in litigation, our concern lies with trained lawyers failing to check the accuracy of legal citations and quotations in their filings.”
natlawreview.com ↗
The file →
- Dec v. Mullin involved petitioner’s counsel.
- He cited two non-existent cases and a false quotation in a brief.
- The Seventh Circuit admonished him but imposed no further sanctions.
- Seventh Circuit, federal appellate court.
- March 30, 2026; the court said counsel failed to verify citations.
Reprimanded
2026-03-27
A Pennsylvania attorney filed a brief using AI-generated summaries of eight DEA adjudications, including one non-existent decision; the Third Circuit reprimanded him and imposed no monetary sanction.
No. 24-2704 ____________ STEPHEN MCCARTHY, P.A. · Stephen McCarthy, P.A · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
“Attorney has harmed his credibility with this court”
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov ↗
The file →
- McCarthy v. DEA involved a Pennsylvania attorney and the Third Circuit.
- He relied on AI-generated summaries of eight DEA adjudications, and one did not exist.
- The court issued only a reprimand and no monetary sanctions.
- The court was the Third Circuit; the article gives no location beyond that.
- The article says the court cited his belated corrections and sincere contrition, and did not clearly articulate AI expectations.
Caught, not sanctioned
Eve
2026-03-27
Ross LeBlanc filed briefs citing a real decision but quoting passages that did not exist, and the mistake was flagged with sanctions being sought.
Ross LeBlanc · Ross LeBlanc · 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge · LA
businessinsider.com ↗
The file →
- Ross LeBlanc, a Dudley DeBosier partner, was linked to the filings.
- He filed briefs with quotes that did not exist in a real court decision.
- The court had not yet imposed sanctions; opposing counsel sought them.
- 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
- March 27, 2026 letter; LeBlanc said he started using Eve to draft pleadings.
Fined
$1K
2026-03-27
A lawyer filed papers with fabricated citations; the court imposed a monetary sanction and adverse costs and recommended CLE.
Amtrust North America o/b/o Justin McGinness v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company · SC New Jersey · NJ
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Amtrust North America o/b/o Justin McGinness v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company involved a lawyer.
- The filing contained fabricated citations.
- The court imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction plus adverse costs and recommended CLE.
- The case was in SC New Jersey.
- Date: 2026-03-27; AI use was listed as implied.
Warned
2026-03-26
The Supreme Court said lawyers had cited fabricated AI-generated cases, treating the conduct as professional misconduct.
Heart and Soul Entertainment Ltd. · Supreme Court of India
“the circulation of so-called non-existent AI-generated judgments had become a problem of epidemic proportions.”
lawandotherthings.com ↗
The file →
- Heart and Soul Entertainment Ltd. involved AI-generated citations in submissions.
- Lawyers cited fabricated cases that did not exist.
- The Supreme Court treated the conduct as professional misconduct.
- Supreme Court of India, in New Delhi.
- 26 March 2026; the court said non-existent AI-generated judgments were a problem of epidemic proportions.
Fined
2026-03-25
The court awarded increased litigation costs after a party made the proceedings chaotic through AI-generated pleadings.
Antwerp Court of Appeal ruling 2025/AR/774 · Antwerp Court of Appeal
ictrechtswijzer.be ↗
The file →
- Antwerp Court of Appeal ruling 2025/AR/774; no attorney named
- AI made the pleadings confusing, with changing facts and grounds
- The court awarded increased litigation costs, with no amount stated
- Antwerp Court of Appeal, Belgium
- Dated 2026-03-25; the opposing party had to file extensive additional briefs
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
2026-03-23
A solicitor filed appeal grounds with a fake citation and later admitted likely using Google’s AI mode and ChatGPT; the Upper Tribunal criticized the conduct but imposed no sanction.
UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department · UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“The Upper Tribunal pointedly noted that it cannot afford to have its limited resources absorbed by representatives who place false information before the Tribunal.”
briefonline.com.au ↗
The file →
- UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a solicitor on the record.
- He filed grounds of appeal containing a false citation and initially denied AI use.
- The tribunal noted the conduct but did not impose a sanction in this article.
- UK Upper Tribunal (IAC), England and Wales.
- March 23, 2026; the article says the solicitor likely used Google’s AI mode and had used ChatGPT for client emails and summaries.
Fined
$10K
2026-03-22
The municipality filed AI-generated materials with a fake Education Ministry directive and fabricated rulings, and the Supreme Court ordered 30,000 NIS in costs.
Ramat Gan municipality special-education dispute · Municipality of Ramat Gan · Israel Supreme Court
“The court found that the municipality relied on materials generated by AI tools that included a non-existent Education Ministry directive and fabricated court rulings, and exceptionally ordered the municipality to pay 30,000 NIS (approximately $9,600) in legal costs.”
pearlcohen.com ↗
The file →
- Municipality of Ramat Gan in a child-services dispute.
- It relied on AI-generated materials with a fake directive and fabricated rulings.
- The Supreme Court imposed 30,000 NIS in legal costs.
- Israel’s Supreme Court.
- March 22, 2026; the court called the use of AI 'reckless'.
Warned
$1K
ChatGPT
2026-03-20
Corwin St. Raymond was not fined, but Judge Carl Barbier issued him a formal warning over the AI-tainted filing in his department.
Gentry v. City of New Orleans · Corwin St. Raymond · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · LA
wdsu.com ↗
The file →
- Gentry v. City of New Orleans also involved Chief Deputy City Attorney Corwin St. Raymond.
- The motion contained nine made-up case citations generated by AI.
- Judge Carl Barbier issued a formal warning, not a fine.
- The case was in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
- On March 20, 2026, the court warned him about improper AI use in his department.
Fined
$500
ChatGPT
2026-03-19
A pro se plaintiff filed a Rule 11 sanctions motion containing fictitious and inaccurate AI-generated case citations; the court awarded fees to the defendant.
Brownfield v. Cherokee County School District No. 35 · Oscar Brownfield · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma · OK
“Still, they “displayed a reckless disregard for the obligation to ensure that what is filed in federal court is true, verified, and worthy of the public trust,” warranting sanctions “both to redress the specific harm and to deter recurrence.””
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
- Brownfield v. Cherokee County School District No. 35 involved a pro se plaintiff sanctioned for bogus citations.
- His Rule 11 motion contained fictitious and inaccurate case citations generated by AI.
- The court ordered $500 paid directly to the school district.
- E.D. Okla., federal court in Oklahoma.
- March 19, 2026; the amount reflected about two hours of defense counsel time.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-03-19
Panas filed an AI-written appellate brief with fake citations, and the court said the brief could be stricken but chose not to impose monetary sanctions.
Sheerer v. Panas · Thomas Panas · First District Court of Appeal, Division Four · CA
“Respondents conduct in this regard is a patent violation of the Rules of Court and alone, merits striking his brief.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
- Sheerer v. Panas; Thomas Panas was the self-represented respondent.
- He admittedly wrote his appellate brief using AI and included fake citations.
- The court did not strike the brief and chose not to impose monetary sanctions.
- First District Court of Appeal, Division Four, California.
- Filed Thursday before March 23, 2026; Judge Ann C. Moorman said the conduct merits striking the brief.
Fined
$10K
2026-03-18
The Oregon Court of Appeals fined William L. Ghiorso $10,000 after his appellate brief cited 15 hallucinated cases.
William Ghiorso · William Ghiorso · Oregon Court of Appeals · OR
“submitting a brief with unchecked and ultimately fabricated citations may breach an attorney’s duties of professionalism, truthfulness, and candor to the court.”
kgw.com ↗
The file →
- William L. Ghiorso was sanctioned by the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- His appellate brief cited 15 hallucinated cases.
- The court imposed a $10,000 fine.
- The case was in the Oregon Court of Appeals in Oregon.
- The opinion was dated March 18, 2026, and Judge Scott A. Shorr noted Ghiorso’s serious health issues.
Fined
$10K
2026-03-18
A brief contained nine incorrect citations out of 27 because of AI tools, and the court imposed a $10,000 fine.
Doiban v. Oregon Liquor & Cannabis Comm’n · Court of Appeals of Oregon · OR
“We further explained that it was “an exceptionally grave situation for at least three reasons.””
josephhollander.com ↗
The file →
- Doiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission involved a brief with hallucinated citations.
- Nine of 27 legal citations in a ten-page brief were incorrect due to AI use.
- The Court of Appeals imposed a $10,000 fine.
- Court of Appeals of Oregon.
- The date was March 18, 2026, and the article quotes the court calling it an 'exceptionally grave situation.'
Warned
2026-03-16
The appellant’s written submissions contained wrong citations and non-existent cases, and the Court of Appeal criticized the AI-hallucination risk but did not impose a sanction in the excerpt.
Von Geitz v. Kelly & Robertson · Irish Court of Appeal
““The plaintiff’s written submissions are littered with propositions of law in quotation marks which are unsupported by authority; reference to authorities which have nothing to do with the asserted propositions of law; wrong citations; and a few non-existent cases.””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- Von Geitz v. Kelly & Robertson in the Court of Appeal.
- Written submissions contained wrong citations and non-existent cases.
- The court warned and criticized, but the excerpt shows no formal sanction.
- Court of Appeal, Ireland.
- 16 March 2026; Allen J. said the non-existent cases might have been AI hallucinations.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-03-16
A Rotterdam lawyer previously called out for AI-hallucinated case law again submitted non-existent judgments at the same court, and the court disregarded the reliance on that purported case law.
Lawyer previously reprimanded again cites AI case law · a Rotterdam lawyer · Rotterdam court
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
- A Rotterdam lawyer was involved again after an earlier callout.
- The lawyer submitted non-existent judgments at the same court.
- The court disregarded the reliance on the purported case law.
- Rotterdam court.
- 16 March 2026; the page does not state a sanction.
Fined
$116K
2026-03-13
Two Tennessee attorneys filed briefs with more than two dozen fake or misrepresented citations, and the Sixth Circuit imposed sanctions and referred them for discipline.
Whiting v. City of Athens, Tennessee · Van R. Irion and Russ Egli · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · TN
“The court found they "repeatedly misrepresented the record, cited non-existent cases, and cited cases for propositions of law that they did not even discuss, much less support."”
Cases that don't exist
- Berg v. Knox Cnty., TN, 2024 WL 2012345, at *4 (6th Cir. Mar. 12, 2024)
- Jones v. Hamilton Cnty., 29 F.4th 647, 655 (6th Cir. 2022)
- Adcock-Ladd v. Secretary of the Treasury, 227 F.3d 343, 350 (6th Cir. 2000)
+1 more
opn.ca6.uscourts.gov ↗
The file →
- Whiting v. City of Athens, Tennessee involved two Tennessee attorneys.
- Their briefs contained more than two dozen fake or misrepresented citations across three appeals.
- The court imposed about $116,000 in sanctions and referred them for discipline.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, federal.
- 2026; the order set $15,000 per attorney plus fees and double costs.
Fined
$15K
2026-03-13
Two attorneys filed appeals with at least two dozen hallucinated citations, and the Sixth Circuit imposed punitive fines on both.
Whiting v. City of Athens · Van R. Irion and Russ Egli · US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
“[n]o brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations — whether provided by generative AI or any other source — that” a lawyer has not personally “read and verified.”
mayerbrown.com ↗
The file →
- Whiting v. City of Athens sanctioned two attorneys of record.
- Their filings contained at least two dozen hallucinated citations across three consolidated appeals.
- The Sixth Circuit imposed $15,000 in punitive fines on both attorneys.
- Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- Date: 2026-03-13; the court said they had 'brought the profession into disrepute.'
Reprimanded
Lexis+ AI
2026-03-11
Counsel submitted briefs with three nonexistent cases in an employment appeal; the Fourth Circuit publicly admonished him.
In re: Eric Chibueze Nwaubani · Eric Chibueze Nwaubani · Fourth Circuit Standing Panel on Attorney Discipline
“three nonexistent cases, each with materially different citations than those of the cases [the attorney] meant to cite”
Cases that don't exist
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jackson, 548 U.S. 629 (2006)
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Glencore Ltd., 611 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
- In re Acres Properties, Inc., 100 F.3d 1307 (7th Cir. 1996)
nortonrosefulbright.com ↗
The file →
- In re: Eric Chibueze Nwaubani; attorney Eric Chibueze Nwaubani
- Briefs in Bolden v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. cited three nonexistent cases
- The Fourth Circuit publicly admonished him
- Fourth Circuit Standing Panel on Attorney Discipline; federal; location not specified on the page
- No date given on the page; the panel said D.C. Rule 8.4(d) applied regardless of whether Gen AI was used
Referred to the bar
2026-03-11
A solicitor filed material with seven non-existent cases and 12 non-existent quotations; Justice Kristen Walker referred the matter to the Legal Services Commissioner.
Oberoi v Douglas [2026] VSCA 31 · Dib & Associates Lawyers · Supreme Court of Victoria · VIC
“It is not acceptable for artificial intelligence to be used by solicitors or barristers in the production of court documents, unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified,”
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
- Oberoi v Douglas [2026] VSCA 31 involved a solicitor represented by Dib & Associates Lawyers.
- The solicitor's written material contained seven non-existent cases and 12 quotations that could not be located.
- Justice Kristen Walker referred the solicitor to the Legal Services Commissioner for investigation.
- Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia.
- March 11, 2026; the solicitor ignored emails seeking an explanation and the court noted serious concerns about potential AI use.
Warned
2026-03-11
An IRS motion included a citation to a non-existent case, and Judge Jennifer Siegel ordered a hearing to discuss it.
Khoja v. Commissioner · IRS attorney · US Tax Court
news.bloombergtax.com ↗
The file →
- Khoja v. Commissioner involved an IRS attorney.
- The motion included a citation to a non-existent case.
- Judge Jennifer Siegel ordered a hearing on the filing.
- US Tax Court, federal, with a hearing on March 11.
- The article raises apparent AI use and safeguards concerns.
Outcome unclear
2026-03-11
The defendants said the claimant deployed AI-generated hallucinatory references to non-existent cases, causing unnecessary cross-checking.
Setu Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Anor · not stated
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- Setu Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Anor involved the claimant.
- The page says AI-generated references to non-existent cases were deployed.
- No sanction is stated on the page.
- Court not stated on the page.
- 11 Mar 2026; the references caused unnecessary effort in cross-checking.
Fined
$2K
ChatGPT
2026-03-10
A pro se plaintiff filed a brief with fabricated case citations and AI-generated content; the court imposed Rule 11 sanctions.
Allen v. Cass Casper · N.D. Ill. · IL
“Pro se status does not shelter plaintiffs from sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. … Filing a document that contains citations to nonexistent cases, quotes language that comes from no real case, or that contains arguments wholly unsupported by the record violates Rule 11. Allen did just that. This demonstrates that Allen failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the supporting law or facts.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
- Allen v. Cass Casper involved a pro se plaintiff sanctioned over AI-made citations.
- Her opposition brief contained at least two entirely fabricated case citations and AI-generated sections.
- The court imposed a $1,500 Rule 11 monetary sanction.
- N.D. Ill., federal court in Illinois.
- March 10, 2026; the court said she relied too heavily on AI without reasonable inquiry.
Referred to the bar
2026-03-10
Khalid Parvaiz filed a factum with fake quotations attributed to real cases, and Justice Frederick Myers said he would refer the matter to the Law Society of Ontario.
Kapahi Real Estate Inc. v. Elite Real Estate Club of Toronto Inc. · Ontario Superior Court of Justice · ON
““The alleged quotations set out in the reply factum are not efforts to quote an actual part of the case that contain a transposition error or two,” Myers wrote. “Rather, they are completely made up. Nothing like them appears in the precedents from which they are said to be quoted.””
lawtimesnews.com ↗
The file →
- Kapahi Real Estate Inc. v. Elite Real Estate Club of Toronto Inc.; Khalid Parvaiz
- Parvaiz filed a factum with real case citations but wholly made up quotations
- Justice Myers said he would refer the matter to the Law Society of Ontario
- Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario
- March 10, 2026; Myers said the quotations were completely made up
Fined
$5K
2026-03-09
Roxanne Chung Bonar cited fabricated cases in a dissolution matter and the Court of Appeal affirmed a $5,000 sanctions order against her.
Joan Pablo Torres Campos vs. Leslie Ann Munoz · Roxanne Chung Bonar · California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One · CA
“"We publish this opinion to emphasize that courts and attorneys alike have a responsibility to protect the legal system against distortion by fabricated law, particularly in this new era of hallucinated citations generated by artificial intelligence (AI) tools."”
Cases that don't exist
- Marriage of Twigg (1984) 34 Cal.3d 926
- Marriage of Teegarden (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1572
sfchronicle.com ↗
The file →
- In re Domestic Partnership of Torres Campos and Munoz involved respondent’s counsel.
- The proposed order and hearing papers contained fictitious case authorities obtained from a Reddit article and apparently from AI tools.
- The Court of Appeal imposed $5,000 in sanctions and referred the matter to the State Bar.
- California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One (state, CA).
- 2026-03-05; the court said reliance on fake cases is fundamentally incompatible with informed discretion.
Fined
$10K
2026-03-06
Two lawyers cited two fictitious AI-generated cases in closing submissions and were ordered to pay S$5,000 each in personal costs.
Tan Hai Peng Micheal v Tan Cheong Joo and another and other matters · Mr Goh Peck San · General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
“It is again re-emphasised in this judgment.”
elitigation.sg ↗
The file →
- Tan Thuan Teck estate suit; Mr Goh Peck San and Mr Amarjit Singh Sidhu
- Closing submissions cited two fictitious AI-generated cases
- Ordered to pay S$5,000 each in personal costs (S$10,000 total)
- Singapore High Court, Singapore
- 2026-03-06; Justice S Mohan said counsel must verify all authorities
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-03-03
The CPS filed submissions citing two non-existent legal cases in an extradition appeal, and the High Court accepted its apology without imposing sanctions.
Tobosaru v Court of Law Craiova, Romania [2026] EWHC 1720 (Admin) · Crown Prosecution Service · High Court
“It would be naive to assume that there will not be an increasing use of artificial intelligence in legal work in future; indeed, that may be both necessary and beneficial.”
newgatesolicitors.com ↗
The file →
- Tobosaru v Court of Law Craiova, Romania [2026] EWHC 1720 (Admin); Crown Prosecution Service
- CPS submissions in an extradition appeal cited two non-existent legal cases
- No sanction was imposed; the court accepted the CPS’s apology and found no deliberate attempt to mislead
- High Court
- July 6, 2026; the false references were likely to have originated from generative artificial intelligence
Warned
ChatGPT
2026-03-01
Several authorities and citations in judicial review grounds could not be located; the Tribunal found the errors consistent with AI-hallucination risk and accepted a supervising solicitor's explanation.
R(Munir) and SOSHD · Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber
““Freely available generative artificial intelligence tools, trained on a large language model such as ChatGPT are not capable of conducting reliable legal research.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- R(Munir) and SOSHD concerned false authorities and citations in judicial review grounds.
- The Tribunal found the pattern of errors consistent with AI-hallucination risk.
- The supervising solicitor accepted that false citations generated by AI may have been used.
- Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, UK.
- 2026-03-01; the Tribunal stressed supervision and accurate checking of documents.
Warned
2026-03-01
Two Quinn Patton partners filed briefs with fake AI-generated case-law quotes, and Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher ordered them to explain the hallucinations.
Quinn Patton filings in U.S. District Court for Maryland · Donald Quinn and Katherine Patton / Quinn Patton · U.S. District Court for Maryland · MD
“attorneys are not entitled to a second bite at the apple”
thedailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
- Quinn Patton / Donald Quinn and Katherine Patton were scrutinized for five briefs with bogus AI-generated quotes.
- The filings contained fake case-law quotes and hallucinations.
- Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher ordered explanations for the hallucinations.
- U.S. District Court for Maryland in Baltimore, Maryland.
- March 2026; Gallagher said her concerns extended to the entire firm.
Fined
$30K
2026-03-01
The Sixth Circuit imposed a $30,000 combined sanction on two attorneys whose briefs contained over two dozen fake citations and referred the matter for possible discipline.
Sixth Circuit AI-citations case · Two Tennessee-based attorneys · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
compliancehub.wiki ↗
The file →
- Two attorneys in the Sixth Circuit were sanctioned for fake citations.
- Their briefs contained over two dozen fake citations and unsupported quotations or propositions.
- The court imposed a $30,000 combined sanction.
- Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, federal appellate court.
- March 2026; the matter was forwarded to the chief judge for potential disciplinary proceedings.
Warned
2026-02-27
The trial court relied on non-existent, AI-generated precedents in ruling on objections to an Advocate Commissioner’s report, and the Supreme Court issued notice to examine the consequences.
Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao · Trial Court Judge · Supreme Court of India
““a decision based on such non-existent and fake alleged judgments is not an error in the decision making,””
Cases that don't exist
- Subramani v. M. Natarajan, (2013) 14 SCC 95
- Chidambaram Pillai v. SAL Ramasamy, (1071) 2 SCC 68
- Lakshmi Devi v. K. Prabha, (2006) 5 SCC 551
+1 more
advocateprakhar.com ↗
The file →
- Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao involved trial-court reliance on fake precedents.
- The defendants said the cited authorities were non-existent and fabricated.
- The Supreme Court issued notice and directed the trial court not to proceed on the basis of the report.
- Supreme Court of India; notice issued in New Delhi.
- Decided 2026-02-27; the page says the trial court used AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments.
Warned
2026-02-27
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of a trial court order based on four fabricated judgments and said legal consequences would follow.
Property injunction suit in Andhra Pradesh trial court · trial court in Andhra Pradesh · AP
“"We take cognisance of the trial court deploying AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments and seek to examine its consequences and accountability as it has a direct bearing on the integrity of the adjudicatory process,"”
medianama.com ↗
The file →
- Andhra Pradesh trial court order was based on fake citations.
- The order relied on four fabricated judgments.
- The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance and said legal consequences would follow.
- Supreme Court of India, after a trial court order in Andhra Pradesh.
- 27 February 2026; the bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe addressed the issue.
Filing dismissed
2026-02-26
A self-represented appellant filed a brief with fabricated legal quotations and misattributed holdings; the court dismissed the appeal.
Samuel K. v. Focia · Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. · CA
“Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations – whether provided by generative AI or any other source – that the person responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
- Samuel K. v. Focia involved a self-represented appellant.
- Her opening brief contained 12 legal quotations, 11 of which were fabrications.
- The court dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
- California Court of Appeal, state court in California.
- February 26, 2026; the court said every citation must be personally read and verified.
Reprimanded
2026-02-24
The CBCA sanctioned a party for citing nonexistent authorities and quoting fabricated deposition testimony, issuing a formal admonishment.
Louis J. Blazy v. Department of State · Civilian Board of Contract Appeals
smithlaw.com ↗
The file →
- Louis J. Blazy v. Department of State was sanctioned by the CBCA.
- The party cited nonexistent authorities and fabricated deposition testimony.
- The sanction was a formal admonishment.
- Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, federal forum.
- Feb. 24, 2026; the Board warned continued misconduct could lead to dismissal.
Warned
2026-02-24
After incorrect ECLI numbers were withdrawn in a tenancy case, a cantonal judge at the Oost-Brabant court ordered a lawyer to explain by submission the suspected AI use.
Cantonal judge raises alarm over possible AI use · Oost-Brabant court
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
- A lawyer in a tenancy case was ordered to explain suspected AI use.
- Incorrect ECLI numbers were withdrawn from the filing.
- The court ordered an explanation, which is a warning-like response.
- Oost-Brabant court.
- 24 February 2026; the judge went a step further than a reprimand.
Fined
$1K
ChatGPT
2026-02-24
An attorney filed an error-filled brief drafted with ChatGPT and Westlaw Precision AI that cited numerous hallucinated cases, and Judge Brandon Long imposed a $1,000 sanction.
Woodward Harbor LLC v. City of Mandeville, et al. · Eastern District of Louisiana · LA
mblb.com ↗
The file →
- Woodward Harbor LLC v. City of Mandeville, et al.; one attorney was sanctioned.
- He submitted a brief drafted with ChatGPT and Westlaw Precision AI containing hallucinated cases.
- The court imposed a $1,000 sanction.
- Eastern District of Louisiana; federal; Louisiana.
- 2026-02-24; the brief included at least 11 citations that were made up, misquoted, or misused.
Warned
ChatGPT
2026-02-22
Three lawyers received a warning and two had to take a mandatory course after citing non-existent judgments generated by ChatGPT in court filings.
First disciplinary measures for lawyers · Judges in Arnhem, Rotterdam, and Groningen
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
- Three lawyers were disciplined.
- They cited non-existent judgments generated by ChatGPT.
- The sanctions were a warning and mandatory course, with no amount stated.
- Judges in Arnhem, Rotterdam, and Groningen.
- 22 February 2026; the page says this was the first disciplinary measure.
Fined
2026-02-18
The Fifth Circuit sanctioned a Texas attorney for a brief drafted with generative AI that contained fabricated quotations and assertions.
Jennifer Walker Elrod · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · TX
“The Fifth Circuit on Wednesday sanctioned a Texas attorney for using generative artificial intelligence to draft a brief that was "riddled with fabricated quotations and assertions," while rebuking the attorney for not being more forthcoming about her use of the technology and her failure to check its accuracy.”
law360.com ↗
The file →
- A Texas attorney was sanctioned in the Fifth Circuit.
- Her AI-drafted brief contained fabricated quotations and assertions.
- The court sanctioned her, but the article gives no amount.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; Texas.
- Feb. 18, 2026; the article says she used generative AI and failed to check accuracy.
Fined
$2K
2026-02-17
The Fifth Circuit sanctioned Heather Hersh for filing an AI-generated brief with 21 fictional case citations and other errors.
In re Heather Hersh · Heather Hersh of FCRA attorneys · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
““Regrettably, despite numerous news stories, CLE presentations, scholarly articles, and judicial entreaties, AI-hallucinated case citations have increasingly become an even greater problem in our courts, and the problem shows no sign of abating,””
bestlawfirms.com ↗
The file →
- Heather Hersh of FCRA attorneys was sanctioned by the Fifth Circuit.
- She filed an AI-generated brief containing 21 fictional case citations and other errors.
- The court ordered a $2,500 sanction.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; federal appellate court.
- Feb. 17, 2026; the opinion said AI-hallucinated citations are getting worse and blamed inadequate review.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-02-17
The Chief Justice-led bench flagged lawyers filing AI-drafted petitions that cited non-existent judgments, including one styled Mercy vs Mankind.
Mercy vs Mankind · Supreme Court of India
“There was a case of Mercy vs Mankind which does not exist,”
m.economictimes.com ↗
The file →
- Mercy vs Mankind was cited before the Supreme Court of India.
- The court said a fictitious judgment had been cited and that it does not exist.
- No sanction was reported in the article.
- Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
- Feb. 17, 2026; Justice Nagarathna recalled the fake case.
Warned
2026-02-17
Counsel filed a matter where all cited precedents were found to be non-existent, and the Supreme Court of India publicly flagged the filings.
Matter before Justice Dipankar Datta · Supreme Court of India
““All precedents cited never existed,” the Chief Justice said, underlining the gravity of the issue.”
organiser.org ↗
The file →
- A matter listed before Justice Dipankar Datta was singled out by the Chief Justice.
- The court said all precedents cited by counsel were non-existent.
- The court issued a warning, not a monetary sanction.
- Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
- Feb. 17, 2026; Chief Justice Surya Kant said some lawyers had started using AI for drafting.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-02-17
The page identifies a second UK AI hallucination case involving false authorities, but gives no named lawyer, firm, or sanction details in the excerpt.
Brightwaters Energy Limited v Eroton Exploration and Production Company LTD [2026] EWHC 296 · [D's representative] · High Court
“The reference to the 2014 case was the result of AI hallucination.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- Brightwaters Energy Limited v Eroton Exploration and Production Company LTD [2026] EWHC 296
- Second AI hallucination case mentioned on the page
- The excerpt does not name the lawyer or firm involved
- High Court, England and Wales
- No sanction details are provided in the text shown
Warned
2026-02-13
Plaintiff's counsel filed briefs with one non-existent case and three false quotes from real cases; the court warned that further synthetic citations would warrant sanctions, but neither side requested sanctions.
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. All Season Power LLC · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“At the very least, the duties imposed by Rule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely.”
reason.com ↗
The file →
- Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. All Season Power LLC; Plaintiff's counsel
- Briefs included one non-existent case and three non-existent quotes from real cases
- No sanctions requested; court warned further synthetic citations would warrant them
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
- Decided Feb. 13; Magistrate Judge Stephanie Christensen said Rule 11 requires attorneys to confirm authorities
Warned
2026-02-13
Petitioners' counsel cited and relied on what the court said appeared to be a fabricated Tenth Circuit case, and the court warned counsel about it.
Petitioners' counsel · Petitioners' counsel
ca10.washburnlaw.edu ↗
The file →
- Petitioners' counsel was warned by name in the document.
- Counsel cited and relied on what appeared to be a fabricated Tenth Circuit case.
- The court issued a warning, not a monetary sanction.
- The document is dated 2026-02-13.
- The page does not name the fake citation, the judge, or any AI tool.
Warned
2026-02-12
Judge J.P. Boulee sanctioned Atlanta lawyer E. Earle Burke after he filed citations and quotations that did not exist.
E. Earle Burke · E. Earle Burke · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · GA
“Salinas said the attorney presented three quotations that did not exist.”
ajc.com ↗
The file →
- E. Earle Burke was sanctioned in federal court in Georgia.
- He filed three nonexistent quotations and cited a non-existent case.
- He must attend a six-hour training course.
- U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee imposed the order in the Northern District of Georgia.
- The article says Magistrate Judge Catherine Salinas questioned whether he used artificial intelligence.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-02-09
Counsel filed a Tax Court brief with fabricated case citations that the court said appeared to be hallucinations generated by a large language model AI.
Clinco v. Comm’r · U.S. Tax Court
“Submitting a brief with fictitious caselaw is a recipe for sanctions and a clear violation of Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
carakerlawfirm.com ↗
The file →
- Clinco v. Comm’r involved counsel for the taxpayer in Tax Court.
- The brief relied on mostly fabricated cases, and 3 of 4 cited cases did not exist.
- The court did not impose a sanction in this described outcome.
- U.S. Tax Court, federal jurisdiction.
- Filed February 9, 2026; the article says the citations appeared to be hallucinations generated by a large language model AI.
Warned
2026-02-09
A plaintiff's brief contained citations to non-existent cases, and Judge Shah cautioned the plaintiff against continued AI use.
Bettis v. Gaston et al · Northern District of Illinois · IL
tresslerllp.com ↗
The file →
- Bettis v. Gaston et al was a Northern District of Illinois case.
- The court found several citations to non-existent cases in the brief.
- Judge Shah cautioned the plaintiff against continued use of AI.
- Federal court in Illinois; no monetary sanction was imposed.
- Feb. 9, 2026; the article says the plaintiff was warned after AI-related fake citations.
Warned
2026-02-09
Mr. Wagner filed a Tax Court brief with three hallucinated AI-generated cases and was let off with a warning.
Peter L. Clinco, Deceased, C. M. Barone-Clinco, Successor in Interest, and C. M. Barone-Clinco · Mr. Wagner · United States Tax Court
“A bit of embarrassment for failure to citecheck, failure to ‘fess up, and (if it occurred) use of AI to write a section of the brief is enough for now.”
taishofflaw.com ↗
The file →
- Peter L. Clinco, Deceased, C. M. Barone-Clinco, Successor in Interest, and C. M. Barone-Clinco; Mr. Wagner was the attorney.
- He cited four cases; three were hallucinations generated by a large language model AI.
- Judge Holmes issued only a warning, with no monetary sanction.
- United States Tax Court; the article says Judge Mark V. Holmes handled it.
- Filed 2026-02-09; the post says Wagner kept citing the inventions even after IRS counsel objected.
Warned
ChatGPT
2026-02-06
Kenosha County DA Xavier Solis filed a brief with undisclosed AI use and false legal citations; Judge David Hughes struck the filing and sanctioned him.
Xavier Solis brief incident · Xavier Solis · Kenosha County Circuit Court · WI
“Hughes struck Solis’ written response after finding it used AI without disclosure and relied on “hallucinated,” false legal citations.”
wjiinc.org ↗
The file →
- Kenosha County DA Xavier Solis was sanctioned
- He filed a response with undisclosed AI use and false legal citations
- Judge David Hughes struck the filing and sanctioned him; no dollar amount was stated
- Kenosha County Circuit Court in Wisconsin
- Feb. 6 hearing; the article says the AI system was described as such as ChatGPT
Filing dismissed
ChatGPT
2026-02-05
Defense counsel filed a motion-to-dismiss brief with false citations, then repeated the errors after a sanctions order to show cause; the court struck the filings and entered default judgment.
Flycatcher Corp. Ltd. v. Affable Ave. LLC · defendant’s counsel in Flycatcher · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“Only 14 out of 60 cases were hallucinations.”
Cases that don't exist
- 2022 WL 4637582
- 2024 LEXIS 2847243
nysba.org ↗
The file →
- Flycatcher Corp. Ltd. v. Affable Ave. LLC involved defendant’s counsel
- Motion-to-dismiss papers contained 13 fake citations and eight real cases with fictitious quotes
- Court struck the submissions and entered default judgment against the defendant
- Southern District of New York, federal court
- Opposing counsel suggested ChatGPT or another AI model; counsel kept filing flawed research
Referred to the bar
2026-02-03
Greg Lake filed a replacement divorce appeal brief with fictitious cases, quotations, and holdings, and the Nebraska Supreme Court referred him for discipline.
Prososki v. Regan · Greg Lake · Nebraska Supreme Court · NE
““With respect, if you didn’t use artificial intelligence, how do we end up with a citation to cases that don’t exist? I mean, it’s frankly a little hard to believe that’s just a citation error,””
Cases that don't exist
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 27 - Neb. App. 510, 934 N.W.2d 57 (2019)
- State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb. App. 500, 874 N.W.2d 211 (2016)
- Schrag v. Spear, 312 Neb. 88, 978 N.W.2d 591 (2022)
+14 more
wowt.com ↗
The file →
- Greg Lake was the Omaha divorce attorney in the Nebraska Supreme Court matter.
- His replacement appellate brief contained fictitious cases, quotations, and holdings.
- The court referred him for discipline; no monetary amount was stated.
- The court was the Nebraska Supreme Court in Nebraska.
- The opinion said the brief had 20 reference hallucinations and warned attorneys to verify filings.
Fined
$12K
ChatGPT
2026-02-02
Lawyers filed briefs with ChatGPT-hallucinated citations and quotations, and Judge Julie A. Robinson publicly admonished and sanctioned them.
Lexos Media IP LLC v. Overstock.com Inc. · Sandeep Seth; Kenneth Kula; Christopher Joe; Michael Doell; David Cooper · D. Kan. · KS
“the Rule 11 duty is “nondelegable.””
minnlawyer.com ↗
The file →
- Four lawyers for a plaintiff company were sanctioned in a patent infringement case.
- They used ChatGPT to find caselaw and filed briefs with hallucinated citations.
- Judge Robinson imposed $12,000 total in sanctions and publicly admonished them.
- U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Kansas.
- Order dated 2026-02-05; the court also revoked one lawyer’s pro hac vice admission and required self-reporting.
Warned
2026-02-01
In Huynh v. Redis Labs, Gordon Rees allegedly filed another brief with fabricated authority despite earlier sanctions and a warning about possible terminating sanctions.
Huynh v. Redis Labs · Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani · U.S. District Court (California) · CA
compliancehub.wiki ↗
The file →
- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani was again accused of AI hallucinations.
- A brief in Huynh v. Redis Labs allegedly contained more fabricated authority.
- The page says the firm had already received monetary sanctions and a warning.
- U.S. District Court in California; federal.
- February 2026; the article says this was a repeat-offender incident.
Fined
$1K
ChatGPT
2026-02-01
A New Orleans court fined John Walker $1,000 after his LSU Health Foundation brief contained at least 11 fabricated or mischaracterized citations.
John Walker · John Walker · New Orleans · LA
““To this day it blows my mind it has that capability,””
developmentcorporate.com ↗
The file →
- John Walker was sanctioned over an LSU Health Foundation brief.
- The brief contained at least 11 fabricated or mischaracterized citations.
- The court imposed a $1,000 fine.
- New Orleans, Louisiana state court.
- February 2026; Walker used both ChatGPT and Westlaw Precision AI.
Warned
Copilot
2026-01-30
A filing used Microsoft Co-Pilot to produce false quotes and fabricated case law, and the High Court issued a warning.
PSAHSC v. Tchampet · High Court
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- PSAHSC v. Tchampet involved AI use in a High Court filing.
- Microsoft Co-Pilot produced false quotes and fabricated case law.
- The court issued a warning, with no monetary penalty listed.
- High Court, UK.
- 30 January 2026; the page says the AI output included false quotes.
Warned
2026-01-30
The representative admitted AI-created phantom references after the issue was pointed out, and the court warned him.
PSAHSC v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2026] EWHC 141 · Unregulated Rep, Litigation Friend · High Court of England and Wales
“This was pointed out to him at the hearing.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- PSAHSC v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2026] EWHC 141 involved an unregulated representative and litigation friend.
- He used references that the court said were phantoms created by AI.
- The outcome was a warning.
- High Court of England and Wales.
- 30 Jan 2026; he promised not to use AI to generate submissions in future.
Warned
ChatGPT
2026-01-29
The appellant used ChatGPT to draft legal submissions and cited cases the tribunal could not locate; the tribunal refused his application and noted possible referral if he were registered.
Folarin v The Immigration Services Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 135 · UK First-tier Tribunal
““This would have had the effect of misleading the Tribunal had the Tribunal not challenged the point.””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- Folarin v The Immigration Services Commissioner; the appellant's submissions
- He used ChatGPT and other AI tools to find and summarize cases, some of which could not be located
- No formal sanction, but the tribunal found he was not fit to provide immigration advice
- UK First-tier Tribunal
- 2026; tribunal stressed that false citations could mislead and that a future regulator referral was possible
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-01-28
A protester filed a bid protest with hallucinated or unverified legal citations, and GAO dismissed the protest but declined to impose sanctions.
Bramstedt Surgical Inc. · Government Accountability Office
““close and careful attorney supervision, fact-checking, and citation-checking are absolute necessities when utilizing AI or any of its subsets.””
govconjudicata.com ↗
The file →
- Bramstedt Surgical Inc. was the protest at issue.
- The protest filing included citations GAO said had hallmarks of unverified AI/LLM drafting.
- GAO dismissed the protest and declined sanctions.
- The forum was the Government Accountability Office in federal bid protest practice.
- GAO issued its decision on 2026-01-28 and warned that non-existent case law can lead to sanctions.
Warned
$4K
2026-01-28
Jeffrey Goldin signed a motion to dismiss with AI-generated false citations; Judge Kearney declined a monetary sanction but ordered a non-monetary corrective distribution.
IBSpot.com motion to dismiss filing · Jeffrey Goldin · U.S. District Court · PA
“the burden should not have fallen on us to expend judicial resources identifying blatantly false cites.”
ediscoverytoday.com ↗
The file →
- IBSpot.com motion to dismiss filed by Jeffrey Goldin and Yen-Yi Anderson
- The filing contained AI-generated false citations that Goldin did not catch before filing
- Goldin received no monetary sanction but had to circulate the decision and his AI policy
- U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania, Judge Mark A. Kearney
- 2026-01-28; Goldin had completed CLE and other remedial steps
Warned
2026-01-28
The court warned that filings with AI-fabricated or incorrect citations may be struck and may draw sanctions, referral, disqualification, filing restrictions, or dismissal.
AI-assisted filings with fabricated or incorrect legal citations · United States District Court for the District of Kansas · KS
“Litigants are therefore responsible for reviewing and verifying the accuracy of all content filed with this court that was drafted or assisted by an AI tool.”
josephhollander.com ↗
The file →
- SO 26-01 was issued by the District of Kansas court.
- It addressed filings containing false statements and fabricated or incorrect legal citations.
- The order did not impose a monetary sanction; it warned of possible sanctions.
- United States District Court for the District of Kansas, Kansas.
- 2026-01-28; signed by Chief Judge John W. Broomes and warned about AI-assisted filings.
Reprimanded
2026-01-27
A federal judge in Pennsylvania reprimanded two Gordon Rees attorneys for filing a motion to dismiss containing at least eight AI-generated false case citations.
Gordon Rees · Gordon Rees · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
law360.com ↗
The file →
- Gordon Rees attorneys were reprimanded in a Pennsylvania copyright infringement suit.
- They filed a motion to dismiss with at least eight false case citations generated by AI.
- The court imposed a reprimand, with no monetary amount stated.
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.
- January 27, 2026; the article says the citations were generated by artificial intelligence.
Fined
$4K
2026-01-26
Anderson and Jeffrey Goldin filed a motion to dismiss with at least eight AI-fabricated citations, and Judge Kearney sanctioned Anderson $4,000.
Lifetime Well LLC v. IBSpot USA Inc. · Yen-Yi Anderson · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
“Judge Kearney was not impressed.”
vibegraveyard.ai ↗
The file →
- Lifetime Well LLC v. IBSpot USA Inc.; attorney Yen-Yi Anderson.
- A motion to dismiss contained at least eight AI-generated false citations.
- Judge Kearney imposed $4,000 in monetary sanctions on Anderson.
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
- Jan. 26, 2026; Anderson blamed time pressure and fired her law clerk.
Fined
$4K
2026-01-26
Lead Counsel filed a brief with fake AI-generated citations and was sanctioned $4,000 under Rule 11.
Lifetime Well LLC v. IBSPOT.Com, Inc. · Lead Counsel · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
“Lead Counsel submitted a brief containing citations to fake opinions—authorities which did not stand for the propositions asserted, arose from inapposite jurisdictions, or included inaccurate quotations.”
fedcivilprocedure.com ↗
The file →
- Lifetime Well LLC v. IBSPOT.Com, Inc. involved Lead Counsel and Local Counsel.
- The brief contained at least eight false case-citation hallucinations generated by AI.
- The court imposed Rule 11 sanctions and fined Lead Counsel $4,000.
- The case was in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- On 2026-01-26, the court said counsel signed without meaningfully reviewing the filing.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-01-21
Jones filed an appellate brief with non-existent quotations attributed to real cases, and the Seventh Circuit declined to sanction him.
Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't · Solomon Jones · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · IL
“our reaction to the quotation errors in Jones's brief.”
jhany.com ↗
The file →
- Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't; Solomon Jones, a pro se litigant, was the subject of the court's review.
- His appellate brief attributed quotations to cases that did not contain them.
- The Seventh Circuit stopped short of imposing any sanction.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; federal; Illinois.
- Jan. 21, 2026; the panel suspected AI hallucination but found no reason to believe the misstatements were knowing or intentional.
Reprimanded
2026-01-20
A federal judge canceled proceedings after finding both sides' lawyers used AI in filings and punished all four lawyers.
Jessica B. v. Jones County School District · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · MS
nytimes.com ↗
The file →
- Jessica B. v. Jones County School District; all four lawyers on opposing sides
- The page says both sides used artificial intelligence in the lawsuit and the judge punished them
- The sanction was punishment/reprimand and the proceedings were canceled
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi; Mississippi
- Dated 2026-01-20; no AI tool or fabricated citations are named on the page
The Court admonished the pro se litigant for filings with hallucinated case law and false legal propositions attributed to undeclared generative AI use.
Amit Arora v. Canadian National Railway · Amit Arora · Federal Court
Cases that don't exist
- Manitoba v. CHRC, 2016 FC 836
- CP Rail v. Canada (AG), 2015 FC 1348
aivortex.io ↗
The file →
- Amit Arora v. Canadian National Railway; Amit Arora was the pro se litigant.
- He filed written representations containing hallucinated case law and false legal propositions.
- The Court issued a formal admonishment and dismissed the motion; costs were awarded to the respondent.
- Federal Court; Canada.
- Jan. 19, 2026; the Court attributed the errors to undeclared, unverified generative AI use.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-01-16
Mingione filed two motions to strike that allegedly contained AI-hallucinated quotes and nonexistent cases; sanctions were sought against him and his client.
J. Salvatore & Sons Inc. v. Gencor Contracting Corp. · Nicholas Mingione · Connecticut Superior Court in Danbury · CT
“"a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal."”
ctinsider.com ↗
The file →
- J. Salvatore & Sons Inc. v. Gencor Contracting Corp.; Nicholas Mingione was accused
- He filed two motions to strike with bogus and hallucinated case law, including citations that did not exist
- Philip Russell sought sanctions, but the article reports only a request, not an imposed sanction
- State Superior Court in Danbury, Connecticut
- Jan. 16, 2026; Mingione said his legal research software had an AI component
Warned
2026-01-14
Kevin A. Julien filed a pro se appellate brief containing a nonexistent Appellate Division citation; the court issued an order to show cause on sanctions.
Matter of Julien v Arthur · Kevin A. Julien · Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · NY
“The father's appellate brief contained a citation to a nonexistent decision purportedly issued by the Appellate Division, First Department, in support of the father's claim of judicial bias.”
nycourts.gov ↗
The file →
- Matter of Julien v Arthur involved Kevin A. Julien, who filed the brief.
- His brief contained fabricated legal authority, including a nonexistent Appellate Division decision.
- The court issued an order to show cause; the sanction outcome on this page is a warning/order to show cause, not a monetary penalty.
- Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, New York.
- January 14, 2026; the court said the brief was highly suggestive of GenAI use and noted bracketed placeholders like '[Appellant to provide information].'
Reprimanded
2026-01-14
Celebrezze filed a disciplinary matter with AI-fabricated legal citations, and the Supreme Court of Ohio sanctioned him.
Disciplinary Counsel v. Celebrezze · Celebrezze · Supreme Court of Ohio · OH
supremecourt.ohio.gov ↗
The file →
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Celebrezze involved Celebrezze.
- He submitted a disciplinary filing with AI-fabricated legal citations.
- The court imposed a reprimand.
- The sanction came from the Supreme Court of Ohio in Ohio.
- The order is dated 2026-01-14 and the page excerpt does not name an AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-01-07
The court issued an order in a pro se case addressing AI use and requiring citation verification.
Hollinger v. Enlisted Ass’n of the Nat’l Guard of the United States · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · VA
bakerbotts.com ↗
The file →
- Hollinger v. Enlisted Ass’n of the Nat’l Guard of the United States
- A pro se matter triggered an EDVA AI-related case-specific order
- No sanction or amount is stated on the page
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
- Jan. 7, 2026; cited as one of two recent EDVA examples
Fined
$3K
2026-01-06
A pro se plaintiff filed motions to strike with mostly hallucinated citations; the court awarded fees and dismissed the case.
Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia, P.C., et al. · Ga. Super. Ct. · GA
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
- Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia, P.C., et al. involved a pro se plaintiff.
- Her motions to strike contained six citations, most of them AI hallucinations.
- The court awarded $2,632 in attorneys’ fees and dismissed the case.
- Georgia Superior Court, state court in Georgia.
- January 6, 2026; one motion had all four cited cases as fictional AI-generated hallucinations.
Fined
$10K
ChatGPT
2026-01-01
A lawyer filed a factum with non-existent authorities and was suspended for 6 months and fined $10,000.
Law Society of Ontario v Lee · Law Society of Ontario Tribunal
“To be clear, it is not professional misconduct for a lawyer to use AI to assist in the preparation of a factum.”
guides.library.queensu.ca ↗
The file →
- Law Society of Ontario v Lee involved a lawyer sanctioned in 2026.
- She filed a factum that included non-existent authorities and an authority that did not support her argument.
- The LSO suspended her licence for 6 months and fined her $10,000.
- The matter was before the Law Society of Ontario Tribunal in Canada.
- The page says she used ChatGPT and quotes the tribunal on verifying AI-generated authorities.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-01-01
A trial court order cited AI-generated non-existent case law, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to vitiate the order because the legal reasoning was otherwise correct.
Gummadi Usha Rani and another v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao and another · Andhra Pradesh High Court · AP
““This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. Merely because non-existing citations were referred due to the use of Artificial Intelligence Tool, without due verification, the order would not be vitiated, when the law stated in the order and its application is correct”.”
verdictum.in ↗
The file →
- Gummadi Usha Rani and another v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao and another involved a trial court order with AI-generated citations.
- The Judicial Officer admitted the citations were AI-generated, used in good faith, and later found untraceable.
- The High Court did not set aside the order; it said the erroneous citations alone did not vitiate it.
- Andhra Pradesh High Court, India; Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari.
- Date not stated in the article; the court warned AI may fabricate authorities and urged verification.
Warned
$50K
2026-01-01
A self-represented litigant cited a fake 'Jyoti Tulsiani' case, and the Bombay High Court imposed adverse costs and a Bar Council warning.
Deepak Bahry v. Heart & Soul · Deepak Bahry · Bombay High Court · MH
“This practice of dumping documents / submissions on the court and making the court go through irrelevant or non-existing material must be deprecated and nipped in the bud.”
Cases that don't exist
- Jyoti vs. Elegant Associates
advocateprakhar.com ↗
The file →
- Deepak Bahry v. Heart & Soul involved a self-represented litigant.
- He cited a fake 'Jyoti Tulsiani' case in court filings.
- The Bombay High Court imposed adverse costs and a Bar Council warning.
- The proceeding was in the Bombay High Court.
- The page dates the incident to January 2026 and notes a fake cited case name.
Caught, not sanctioned
2026-01-01
Plaintiff’s counsel admitted using AI to prepare a factum that included a nonexistent quote and mismatched principles; the court said AI misuse would affect costs.
RSR Road Surface Recycling v. Bonnechere Excavating et al. · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
lawtimesnews.com ↗
The file →
- RSR Road Surface Recycling v. Bonnechere Excavating et al.; counsel for plaintiff
- AI was used to prepare the factum and produced hallucinated material
- The court said AI misuse would be factored into costs
- Ontario Superior Court of Justice
- 2026; counsel admitted using AI software
Referred to the bar
2026-01-01
Clearpoint allegedly drafted foreclosure filings with hallucinated citations and the court referred the matter to Arizona regulators instead of making findings.
Pearl Gardner v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · Clearpoint · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · AZ
“The Court stated that the complaint and motions filed in the case bore multiple “hallmarks of AI,” including unusual structure, fabricated citations, and misinterpretations of existing law.”
triallawyersjournal.com ↗
The file →
- Pearl Gardner v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC involved Clearpoint's foreclosure filings.
- Clearpoint allegedly used undisclosed AI and included nonexistent legal authorities.
- The court did not impose a monetary sanction; it referred the matter for investigation.
- United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Arizona.
- January 2026 order; the court said the filings bore multiple 'hallmarks of AI.'
A response brief contained four problematic citations, including one fabricated citation, and the court imposed Rule 11 sanctions and other restrictions.
Billups v. Louisville Municipal School Distr. · Watson & Norris, PLLC; Jane Watson; Louis Watson; Nick Norris · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · MS
“There's a difference between a seasoned, good lawyer and somebody who uses AI to look like one.”
forbes.com ↗
The file →
- Billups v. Louisville Municipal School Distr. involved Watson & Norris, PLLC and attorneys Jane Watson, Louis Watson, and Nick Norris.
- Their response brief contained one totally made-up citation and three citations that misstated holdings.
- The court imposed sanctions including disqualification, reporting obligations, and restrictions on Watson.
- The order came from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, dated 2025-12-19.
- The page says Watson had used an AI tool called Archie only within the firm's litigation-support software, but also used AI elsewhere without verification.
Fined
2025-12-19
A Mississippi federal court sanctioned three attorneys for using AI in an age discrimination case, producing hallucinated citations in that case and others.
Mississippi federal age discrimination case · Jacks Griffith · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · MS
law360.com ↗
The file →
- Three attorneys at Jacks Griffith were sanctioned in a Mississippi federal age discrimination case.
- They used artificial intelligence and got hallucinated citations in that case and other Mississippi cases.
- The court imposed sanctions, but the article does not state an amount.
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Mississippi.
- Ordered on Friday, Dec. 19, 2025; Judge Sharion Aycock is listed on the page.
Fined
$2K
2025-12-18
The Fifth Circuit sanctioned counsel $2,500 after a reply brief contained hallucinated case citations and counsel gave evasive answers about them.
Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · Fifth Circuit
“Had Hersh accepted responsibility and been more forthcoming, it is likely that the court would have imposed lesser sanctions.”
nortonrosefulbright.com ↗
The file →
- Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; counsel was sanctioned by the Fifth Circuit.
- A reply brief contained several hallucinated case citations and misstatements.
- The court imposed a $2,500 monetary sanction.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; the opinion was by Chief Judge Jennifer Elrod.
- Published Feb. 18; the court also cited evasive responses and generative AI use to organize the brief.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-12-18
The court voided the control procedure and canceled a repayment claim after finding the plaintiff's cited case law did not match published decisions.
Tribunal judiciaire de Périgueux, n° 23/00452 · Tribunal judiciaire de Périgueux (Pôle social)
“requested the plaintiff and his lawyer to check in future that references found via search engines or generative AI are not hallucinations.”
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
- Tribunal judiciaire de Périgueux, n° 23/00452; the plaintiff and his lawyer
- Plaintiff cited case-law references that did not correspond to published decisions
- No sanction was imposed; the court instead canceled the repayment claim
- Tribunal judiciaire de Périgueux (Pôle social), Périgueux, France
- 2025-12-18; court warned to verify references from search engines or generative AI
Fined
$77K
Gemini
2025-12-18
MIO Legal Consultants LLP filed a defence with AI-fabricated and unsupported case citations, and the court ordered indemnity costs.
Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam [2025] ADGMCFI 0032 · MIO Legal Consultants LLP · Abu Dhabi Global Market Court of First Instance
““The fault for reliance on AI hallucinations as factually accurate lies not with the research programme, but with the person responsible for conducting the search.””
theaskconsultancy.com ↗
The file →
- Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam [2025] ADGMCFI 0032 involved MIO Legal Consultants LLP.
- The firm filed a 327-paragraph defence containing cases that did not exist or did not support the propositions cited.
- The court ordered AED 282,508 in indemnity costs, about USD 77,039.
- The order was issued by the Abu Dhabi Global Market Court of First Instance in Abu Dhabi.
- On 2025-12-18, Justice Paul Heath KC said the fault lay with the person responsible for the search, not the AI.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-12-17
A brief cited fake cases, and Judge Johnston did not impose sanctions, likely because the litigant was pro se.
In Halpern v. FRB of N.Y. · Northern District of Illinois · IL
tresslerllp.com ↗
The file →
- In Halpern v. FRB of N.Y. involved fake-case citations.
- The court received a brief citing fake cases but imposed no sanctions.
- The article says leniency was likely due to the pro se litigant.
- Northern District of Illinois, federal court in Illinois.
- Dec. 17, 2025; Judge Johnston was one of the judges mentioned.
Fined
$6K
2025-12-16
Blackburn filed a response brief with hallucinated AI-generated case law; Judge Leo Gordon fined him and ordered bar notifications.
Liza Gardner v. Sean "Diddy" Combs · Tyrone Blackburn · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“"Mr. Blackburn confirmed that he indeed used AI that provided him with hallucinated case law and propositions that he then incorporated into his response brief and that he failed to verify on subsequent review," Judge Gordon wrote.”
billboard.com ↗
The file →
- Liza Gardner v. Sean "Diddy" Combs; attorney Tyrone Blackburn was sanctioned.
- He used AI and cited hallucinated case law in a response brief.
- Judge Gordon imposed a $6,000 fine and required bar notifications.
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Dec. 16 ruling; Blackburn admitted the AI mistakes and the case "Masha" did not exist.
Fined
$6K
2025-12-15
A plaintiff’s attorney filed a brief with a hallucinated AI-generated case and legal propositions, and the court sanctioned him under Rule 11.
Gardner v. Combs · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
“The Court found that the plaintiff’s attorney plainly violated Rule 11 by using a hallucinated case; the attorney admitted same.”
weiner.law ↗
The file →
- Gardner v. Combs involved the plaintiff’s attorney, who filed AI-derived legal propositions and a nonexistent case.
- The attorney used a hallucinated case in a brief submitted to the court and failed to provide the cited case when challenged.
- The court imposed a $6,000 fine and required self-reporting to New Jersey and New York licensing entities.
- The case was in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
- The opinion and order were dated 2025-12-15, and the article says the attorney had been notified by opposing counsel about the questionable citation.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-12-15
The court found the reopening request relied on non-existent case law, likely from uncontrolled AI use, and treated the conduct as bad faith and disruptive.
Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent, ECLI:BE:ORGNT:2025:JUG.20251215.1 · Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
- Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent; the company
- The reopening request cited non-existent case law likely produced by uncontrolled AI
- The court found bad faith and disruption but imposed no stated sanction
- Ghent, Belgium
- 2025-12-15; insolvency proceedings before the commercial court
Warned
2025-12-15
Garcia appealed with fabricated legal citations made by generative AI, and PERB affirmed dismissal but declined monetary sanctions.
Atwater Elementary Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Garcia) · Christina Garcia · California Public Employment Relations Board · CA
perb.ca.gov ↗
The file →
- Atwater Elementary Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Garcia) and Christina Garcia
- Garcia’s appeal contained fabricated legal citations created by generative AI tools
- PERB affirmed dismissal and declined monetary sanctions
- California Public Employment Relations Board, California
- 2025-12-15; PERB warned that fabricated citations in filings will bring serious consequences
Fined
$110K
2025-12-12
Two lawyers filed summary-judgment briefs with 15 nonexistent cases and 8 fabricated quotations; the court dismissed the claims and imposed sanctions.
Couvrette v. Wisnovsky · Stephen Brigandi and Timothy Murphy · U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · OR
“"rather than a correction, Mr. Brigandi attempted a cover-up," and that "he failed at both."”
Cases that don't exist
- Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC, 345 Or. App. 301, __ P.3d __ (2025)
vaquill.ai ↗
The file →
- Couvrette v. Wisnovsky; Stephen Brigandi and Tim Murphy were sanctioned.
- They filed briefs containing AI-fabricated cases and quotations.
- The court imposed $110,204.38 in sanctions and fees and dismissed the claims with prejudice.
- U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (federal, Oregon).
- Order dated 2025-12-12; Judge Mark D. Clarke called it an attempted cover-up.
Reprimanded
2025-12-12
In an injunction proceeding, the judge suspected an appeal brief was drafted using AI and admonished the lawyer after declaring the appeal void.
La IA también alucina con leyes · Court in the Argentine province of Salta
“She admonished the lawyer, stating that while the use of Artificial Intelligence is not prohibited, the lawyer remains fully responsible for the content.”
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
- La IA también alucina con leyes; the lawyer
- A brief in an injunction proceeding contained serious inconsistencies and was suspected to be AI-drafted
- The judge admonished the lawyer and declared the appeal void
- Salta, Argentina
- 2025-12-12; the appeal was declared desierta
Fined
$3K
ChatGPT
2025-12-12
Co-counsel Celeste Boyd used ChatGPT to draft and edit portions of briefs in an OnlyFans-related case and was sanctioned $3,000 for failing to verify them.
Celeste Boyd · Celeste Boyd · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“The judge additionally imposed a $3,000 sanction on co-counsel Celeste Boyd, who he said used ChatGPT to draft and edit portions of the briefs but failed to verify the material, Reuters also reports.”
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
- Celeste Boyd was sanctioned as co-counsel in the OnlyFans case.
- She used ChatGPT to draft and edit portions of briefs that contained hallucinated material.
- The court imposed a $3,000 sanction on Boyd.
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; Judge Fred Slaughter; California.
- The article says she failed to verify the material before filing.
Warned
Copilot
2025-12-11
Dana McClain filed a pleading with AI-generated citations that could not be verified, and the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a show-cause order.
Dana McClain · Dana McClain · Arkansas Supreme Court · AR
“In its order, the Supreme Court reminded attorneys they are responsible for the accuracy of all filings and warned that misuse of artificial intelligence in legal work could result in discipline, including substantial fines, suspension or loss of the privilege to practice law in Arkansas.”
ktlo.com ↗
The file →
- Dana McClain was the Arkansas attorney involved.
- She filed court documents containing AI-generated citations that could not be verified.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court issued a show-cause order; the article does not report a monetary sanction.
- Arkansas Supreme Court, Arkansas.
- Dec. 11, 2025; she said she used Microsoft Office Copilot to draft the response and failed to verify the citations.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
2025-12-10
A pro se claimant used ChatGPT to generate fabricated case law, and the tribunal awarded a preparation time order of £2,178 stayed pending appeal.
Mr J Harrison v Mr D May t/a Leeds Gymnastics Academy · Employment Tribunals (Leeds)
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Mr J Harrison v Mr D May t/a Leeds Gymnastics Academy involved AI-generated citations.
- ChatGPT generated fabricated case law in the pleadings.
- The tribunal awarded a preparation time order of £2,178, stayed pending EAT appeal.
- Employment Tribunals (Leeds), UK.
- 10 December 2025; the page says the payment was stayed pending appeal.
Referred to the bar
2025-12-10
Sara Evelyn McLane filed an answer brief with three inaccurate AI-generated citations and was referred to The Florida Bar for possible sanctions.
Russell v. Mells · Sara Evelyn McLane · Florida Second District Court of Appeal · FL
“To state the obvious, it is a fundamental duty of attorneys to
read
the legal authorities they cite in appellate briefs or any other court filings to determine that the authorities stand for the propositions for which they are cited.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Russell v. Mells involved attorney Sara Evelyn McLane.
- She filed an answer brief with inaccurate computer-generated citations, including one nonexistent case.
- The court referred her to The Florida Bar; no monetary sanction was imposed in the article.
- Florida Second District Court of Appeal in Florida.
- Dec. 10, 2025; Chief Judge Matthew C. Lucas said counsel must personally execute the written response.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-12-09
The court found the plaintiff had cited case-law references that could not be located, indicating hallucinated AI-generated references, but imposed no sanctions.
Tribunal argentino apercibe a abogado que utilizó inteligencia artificial para redactar escrito con jurisprudencia inexistente · Cámara del Trabajo - 1ra Circ. - Viedma
“However, the court did not impose any sanctions, as the incident occurred before a relevant regulation came into force.”
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
- Tribunal argentino apercibe a abogado que utilizó inteligencia artificial para redactar escrito con jurisprudencia inexistente; the plaintiff's lawyer
- The plaintiff filed a brief with uncitable case-law references likely generated by AI
- No sanctions were imposed because a relevant regulation was not yet in force
- Cámara del Trabajo - 1ra Circ. - Viedma, Argentina
- 2025-12-09; the court warned against AI hallucinations
Fined
$60K
ChatGPT
2025-12-05
An Illinois circuit court sanctioned a law firm $50,000 and an attorney $10,000 for filing post-trial submissions with false AI-generated case citations and quotations.
Jordan v. Chi. Hous. Auth. · Ill. Cir. Ct. · IL
“The Court further emphasized its focus was “not on the misuse of artificial intelligence to conduct unreliable legal research and drafting,” but “the inexcusable submission of false authority and factual arguments to the Court, the subsequent misrepresentations about the extent of the improper conduct, and the failure to take prompt responsibility for errors once discovered.””
klemchuk.com ↗
The file →
- Jordan v. Chi. Hous. Auth.; Illinois law firm and attorney sanctioned
- Post-trial filings contained false case citations and quotations generated by AI
- $60,000 total sanctions: $50,000 firm and $10,000 attorney
- Ill. Cir. Ct., Illinois
- Dec. 5, 2025; drafting attorney said she used ChatGPT
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
2025-12-04
Jisuh Lee filed a factum with hallucinated case law and allegedly lied about using ChatGPT; the court referred the matter for criminal contempt proceedings.
Ko v. Li · Jisuh Lee of ML Lawyers · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
““This is a very unusual case and one that may resonate throughout the administration of justice.””
law360.ca ↗
The file →
- Ko v. Li involved Jisuh Lee of ML Lawyers in an estate matter.
- She filed a factum containing AI-hallucinated case law and later admitted using ChatGPT.
- The court referred the contempt matter to Ontario’s attorney general; no amount was ordered.
- Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada.
- Dec. 4 order; Justice Frederick Myers said it was a very unusual case.
Fined
2025-12-04
The court found reckless, ill-considered claims based on baseless arguments and awarded 7,500 euros per party.
Antwerp Court of Appeal ruling · Antwerp Court of Appeal
ictrechtswijzer.be ↗
The file →
- Antwerp Court of Appeal ruling; serial litigants were involved
- They filed dozens of bad-faith lawsuits using AI
- The court awarded 7,500 euros per party
- Antwerp Court of Appeal, Belgium
- Dated 2025-12-04; the users were not represented by an attorney
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-12-04
A brief cited fake cases, and Judge Pallmeyer did not impose sanctions, likely because the litigant was pro se.
Dorsey v. Ponce et al · Northern District of Illinois · IL
tresslerllp.com ↗
The file →
- Dorsey v. Ponce et al involved fake-case citations.
- The court received a brief citing fake cases but imposed no sanctions.
- The article says leniency was likely due to the pro se litigant.
- Northern District of Illinois, federal court in Illinois.
- Dec. 4, 2025; Judge Pallmeyer was one of the judges mentioned.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
2025-12-04
McGuire Woods filed a brief with fake citations, and the court sanctioned the lawyer and ordered the firm to explain itself.
Ringer v. Bank of America · McGuire Woods LLP · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · GA
“In other words, the Court must be concerned with the message sent to other lawyers, firms and non represented parties as to the consequences of cutting corners, by using tools such as ChatGPT or even AI modules offered by reputable legal research databases without adequate care, or otherwise failing to verify the accuracy of citations and assertions in legal filings.”
tcpaworld.com ↗
The file →
- Ringer v. Bank of America; McGuire Woods LLP was involved.
- A lawyer filed a brief containing a ton of fake cites.
- The court sanctioned the lawyer and required the firm to explain itself.
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
- Dec. 4, 2025; the court said careless citation errors must not be tolerated.
Caught, not sanctioned
Gemini
2025-12-04
The court declined to transfer the case and noted that counsel had cited AI-generated authorities, but no sanction order is described on the page.
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation · N.D. Ga. · GA
copyrightalliance.org ↗
The file →
- In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation; counsel
- The page says counsel cited AI-generated authorities in the case
- No sanction order is described on the page
- N.D. Ga. in federal court, Georgia
- 2025-12-04; the page mentions Gemini among AI tools
Filing dismissed
2025-12-03
The court dismissed a waste-disposal fine challenge and said the statement of claim had clearly been generated using a generative AI tool.
Tribunal administratif de Grenoble · Tribunal administratif de Grenoble
“the statement of claim had clearly been generated using a generative AI tool.”
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
- Tribunal administratif de Grenoble, 2509827; the citizen
- The filing was unclear and the court found it had been generated with generative AI
- The court dismissed the application as manifestly inadmissible
- Grenoble, France
- 2025-12-03; municipal fine for waste disposal was challenged
Reprimanded
2025-12-03
Gordon Rees received a reprimand after filing documents containing AI-hallucinated or fictitious legal citations.
Villalovos-Gutierrez v. Pol. · Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani · U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney · CA
“Counsel shall not file or otherwise present to the court any documents which contain AI-hallucinated citations or fictitious or non-existent legal citations.”
completeaitraining.com ↗
The file →
- Gordon Rees was reprimanded in Villalovos-Gutierrez v. Pol.
- The court said the firm filed documents with AI-hallucinated or fictitious citations.
- The sanction was a reprimand with no amount stated.
- The order came from U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney.
- Date was December 3, 2025; the page did not name an AI tool.
Fined
$2K
2025-12-03
Gabriel A. Watson filed appellate briefs with two made-up cases and a fabricated quote, and the Oregon Court of Appeals fined him $2,000.
Cohoon v. Ringo · Gabriel A. Watson · Oregon Court of Appeals · OR
“Although artificial intelligence programs may seem to offer a shortcut for a busy attorney in an individual case, at present, they may create a long cut to justice,”
oregonlive.com ↗
The file →
- Gabriel A. Watson was sanctioned in the Cohoon/Ringo appeal.
- He filed briefs citing two made-up cases and a fabricated quote from real case law.
- The Oregon Court of Appeals imposed a $2,000 fine.
- The sanction came from the Oregon Court of Appeals in Oregon.
- Dec. 3, 2025; Chief Judge Erin Lagesen called it a "very grave situation".
Fined
$16K
2025-12-01
The District of Oregon fined an attorney for citing fake cases and not being adequately forthcoming, candid, or apologetic.
District of Oregon fined an attorney for citing fake cases · US District Court for the District of Oregon · OR
“The US District Court for the District of Oregon fined an attorney $15,500 in December for citing fake cases and not being “adequately forthcoming, candid, or apologetic” about it.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- An attorney was fined in the District of Oregon.
- The filing used fake cases and the attorney was not sufficiently forthcoming about it.
- The court imposed a $15,500 monetary fine.
- US District Court for the District of Oregon, Oregon.
- December 2025; the article highlights the court's criticism of the attorney's lack of candor.
Fined
$2K
2025-12-01
Counsel filed a brief with fabricated cases, a fabricated quotation, and fabricated substantive law; the court struck the brief and imposed sanctions.
Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC · Oregon Court of Appeals · OR
“We also recognize that it has become common to refer to cases and principles fabricated by artificial intelligence as ‘hallucinations.’ We reject that terminology because it obscures both the nature and the seriousness of the situation we face. … [G]enerative artificial intelligence is not perceiving nonexistent law as the result of a disorder. Rather, it is generating nonexistent law in accordance with its design.”
techlaw.osbar.org ↗
The file →
- Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC involved respondents’ counsel.
- The brief was littered with fabricated cases, a fabricated quotation, and fabricated substantive law.
- The court struck the brief and imposed $2,000 in sanctions.
- Oregon Court of Appeals, Oregon.
- December 2025; the court said the fabricated law likely resulted from artificial intelligence.
Filing dismissed
$110K
2025-12-01
Attorneys filed AI-generated research with fabricated case law, and the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, imposed $110,000 in sanctions and fees, and referred the matter to the Oregon State Bar.
vineyard inheritance lawsuit · federal judge in Oregon · OR
helsell.com ↗
The file →
- vineyard inheritance lawsuit
- Attorneys relied on AI-generated research containing fabricated case law
- Dismissal plus $110,000 in sanctions and fees and a referral
- Federal judge in Oregon
- December 2025; sanctions were imposed on filing attorneys and associated local counsel
Referred to the bar
2025-11-28
The court disqualified the defense attorney and referred her to the Bar Association after a brief with fabricated case law and misrepresented precedents, likely from unverified AI use.
Elías Axel Roberto Rafael s/ Abuso sexual con acceso carnal · CSJ de Tucumán
“No puede soslayarse, como hecho de gravedad institucional, que la defensa técnica del imputado - en el momento procesal que constituye la última instancia de revisión extraordinaria local- haya presentado un escrito elaborado posiblemente mediante el uso de herramientas de inteligencia artificial, u obtenidos a través de medios no confiables y fidedignos sin ejercer el más mínimo control sobre la veracidad de las citas jurisprudenciales, la autenticidad de las fuentes invocadas ni la coherencia dogmática de los fundamentos empleados.La conducta descripta trasciende el mero error material o descuido profesional: configura un supuesto de negligencia grave incompatible con los deberes de probidad, lealtad y diligencia que rigen la funcióndel abogado defensor.La defensa penal no puede convertirse en unespacio de experimentación de medios y/o tecnologías de manera irresponsable que - aunque de utilidad potencial - requieren un manejo prudente, crítico y siempre supervisado por el criterio humano. El ejercicio de la defensa en juicio, protegido por el art. 18 de la Constitución Nacional y por los instrumentos internacionales con jerarquía constitucional, exige una intervención personal, reflexiva y fundada de quien ejerce la representación técnica. El uso automático y acrítico de un asistente artificial, o la utilización de fuentes con procedencia desconocida para producir un escrito en la instancia recursiva vulnera no solo el deber de diligencia, sino también el derecho del imputado a una defensa real y efectiva.”
aivortex.io ↗
The file →
- Elías Axel Roberto Rafael s/ Abuso sexual con acceso carnal; defense attorney
- Filed a brief with fabricated case law and misrepresented precedents
- Attorney disqualified and referred to the Bar Association; no amount stated
- CSJ de Tucumán, Argentina
- 2025-11-28; court inferred possible AI use from the errors
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
2025-11-27
A barrister used ChatGPT to draft appeal grounds with a false citation and the tribunal reported him to the Bar Standards Board but did not start contempt proceedings.
MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
barcouncil.org.uk ↗
The file →
- MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a barrister before the Upper Tribunal.
- He included a false citation and later used ChatGPT to draft the grounds of appeal.
- The tribunal referred him to the Bar Standards Board but did not initiate contempt proceedings.
- Court: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), Bangladesh; [2025] UKUT 305 (IAC).
- Date: 2025-11-27; he did not use Westlaw or Lexis Nexis to check the work.
Fined
$5K
2025-11-25
Lucas used AI to draft an opening brief without verifying citations, and the Court of Appeal imposed a $5,000 sanction.
County of Los Angeles v. Niblett · Robert W. Lucas · California Court of Appeal, Division One · CA
“It…appears Attorney Lucas used artificial intelligence to prepare the opening brief, filed the brief without verifying the accuracy of the case authority it discusses, and failed to correct his mis citation of cases appearing in the opening brief despite the County’s appellate brief noting these errors.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
- County of Los Angeles v. Niblett; Robert W. Lucas
- He admitted he misused artificial intelligence in the opening brief
- Court of Appeal imposed a $5,000 sanction
- California Court of Appeal, Division One
- Nov. 25, 2025; Bendix said Lucas showed troubling disregard for duties as an officer of the court
Reprimanded
ChatGPT
2025-11-21
Gordon Rees submitted filings with hallucinated AI citations; Judge Christopher L. Hawkins declined to sanction the firm but reprimanded former lawyer Cassie D. Preston.
Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc. bankruptcy proceeding · Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama · AL
“attorneys must not allow their personal feelings to cloud their professional judgment, and Ms. Preston crossed a line when she resorted to making use of arguments and authorities generated by artificial intelligence”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Jackson Hosp. & Clinic Inc. and Cassie Preston were sanctioned in bankruptcy court.
- She submitted filings with artificial-intelligence generated fake citations.
- The court publicly reprimanded her and ordered disclosure/compliance steps, with no monetary amount stated.
- US Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama; Judge Christopher L. Hawkins.
- Order dated 2025-11-21; the opinion also found misleading and fabricated citations.
Referred to the bar
$250
2025-11-20
Plaintiff’s counsel filed a settlement-approval motion with AI-generated fake citations, and the court struck it, fined counsel, and referred him for discipline.
Buchanan v. Vuori, Inc. · James Dal Bon · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
“the rise in non-existent cases and quotations hallucinated by artificial intelligence tools”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
- Buchanan v. Vuori, Inc.; plaintiff’s counsel was sanctioned
- A settlement-approval motion contained 8 false quotations and one nonexistent case from AI
- Court ordered a $250 payment, struck the motions, and referred counsel to the Standing Committee
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, California
- Nov. 20, 2025; counsel used about six different AI tools and the court found Rule 11 and candor violations
Fined
2025-11-20
Gordon & Thompson filed an amended particulars of claim with two fake AI-generated authorities; the court made a wasted costs order and declined a separate referral of solicitor Raphael Newton to the SRA.
Ndaryiyumvire v Brimingham City University · Gordon & Thompson · Birmingham County Court
““In my judgement, from the evidence that I have heard, it was not Mr Newton that placed false material before the court, it was administrative staff at his firm.””
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
- Ndaryiyumvire v Brimingham City University involved Gordon & Thompson and solicitor Raphael Newton.
- An amended claim was filed with two fake cases generated by AI and later withdrawn.
- The court made a wasted costs order against Gordon & Thompson and did not make a separate SRA referral of Newton.
- Birmingham County Court, Birmingham.
- 20 November 2025; the judge said the failure was in substance a failure of management at the firm.
Fined
$3K
2025-11-19
Pro se defendant Paul Kimmel filed briefs with dozens of fake or misrepresented citations, and Chief Judge Hala Jarbou imposed Rule 11 sanctions.
Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Kimmel · Paul Kimmel · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan · MI
“The Court finds this response inadequate and not credible,”
reason.com ↗
The file →
- Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Kimmel; Paul Kimmel was sanctioned.
- He submitted filings with dozens of misrepresented or fake cases and citations.
- The court imposed a $2,900 monetary fine under Rule 11.
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
- Nov. 19, 2025 order by Chief Judge Hala Jarbou; the court said it need not decide whether AI was actually used.
Fined
$2K
2025-11-17
Grotke filed a supersedeas petition and opening brief with fabricated legal citations, and the court sanctioned him $1,750.
Schlicter v. Kennedy · California Court of Appeal, Division 2, Fourth Appellate District · CA
“Grotke's spurious citations bear the hallmarks of hallucinated citations produced by generative AI.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
- Schlichter v. Kennedy; attorney Jeffrey Dean Grotke was sanctioned.
- He filed a petition and opening brief with fabricated citations generated at least in part using AI.
- The court imposed a $1,750 sanction payable to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, in California.
- Filed Monday; the order said the citations bore hallmarks of hallucinated citations produced by generative AI.
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
2025-11-17
CLP filed judicial-review grounds with bogus authorities and the Upper Tribunal said the author and COLP should expect referral.
R (Munir) v SSHD · City Law Practice Solicitors and Advocates · Upper Tribunal (IAC)
“It would be easy to think that this is a case about the naïve use of generative AI, but it is not merely about that; it is principally about supervision and the obligation to ensure that the tribunal is not misled.”
asadakhan.wordpress.com ↗
The file →
- R (Munir) v SSHD involved City Law Practice Solicitors and Advocates and Zubair Rasheed.
- Judicial-review grounds were filed with bogus authorities and incorrect citations.
- The Upper Tribunal said the conduct should ordinarily be referred to a regulator.
- Upper Tribunal (IAC), United Kingdom; Judges Lindsley, Keith and Blundell.
- 17 November 2025; the court stressed supervision failures and mentioned ChatGPT.
Filing dismissed
ChatGPT
2025-11-14
A pro se filer used AI-generated citations in a bankruptcy filing; the court sanctioned her by dismissing the case without prejudice.
In re Cathleen Siebrecht · Cathleen Siebrecht · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia · VA
““The ‘AI-generated citations’ in the filing were ‘hallucinated’ and not supported by the law.””
Cases that don't exist
- In re Zepeda, 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 1234
- In re Jones, 2024 WL 1234567
calawyers.org ↗
The file →
- In re Cathleen Siebrecht involved Cathleen Siebrecht, who filed a bankruptcy paper with AI-generated citations.
- The filing contained hallucinated legal citations and the court found they were unsupported by law.
- The court dismissed the case without prejudice.
- It was in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- The order was entered on 2025-11-14, and the page says the citations were ChatGPT-generated.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-11-13
A law firm inadvertently filed a brief with two AI-generated fake citations, then promptly acknowledged the error and took remedial actions that satisfied the court.
Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Peacock · Buchalter · U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · OR
“one cited case was “totally fake” and another was “almost real” because there is a case with the name, but it is a state case instead of a federal case as indicated.”
reuters.com ↗
The file →
- Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Peacock; a law firm was involved
- The firm filed a brief containing two AI-generated fake citations
- The court did not impose sanctions after the firm acknowledged the mistake and remedied it
- U.S. District Court for Oregon
- Nov. 12, 2025; the court found the firm’s forthright response sufficient
Warned
2025-11-13
Parties filed AI-generated cost submissions with fake cases and bad hyperlinks, and the court ordered them to address the misuse.
X.L. v. Z.L. · Ontario Superior Court of Justice · ON
Cases that don't exist
- Bank of Montreal v. Wilder, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 118
- Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP v. Shorter, 2011 ONSC 5840
- Ontario Inc. v. Ranch Heating and Air conditioning (Barrie) Limited, 2012 ONSC 182
grllp.com ↗
The file →
- X.L. v. Z.L. involved respondents S and Y, and maybe Z.L.
- Their submissions used AI and cited fake cases or hyperlinks that did not support the propositions.
- The court ordered them to address the AI-generated submissions; the article says cost sanctions were still awaited.
- Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario.
- November 13, 2025; the practice directions say AI misuse can lead to reprimand, costs, fines, dismissal, and referral.
Reprimanded
Gemini
2025-11-12
A Dubai-based lawyer cited two non-existent QFC cases in submissions, and the QFC Court found him in contempt but imposed no penal sanction.
Jonathan David Sheppard v Jillion LLC · A Dubai-based lawyer · Qatar International Court (QFC Court)
“It was inconceivable for any lawyer not to verify the case law citations produced by an AI tool with the actual body of case law published by the QFC Court.”
Cases that don't exist
- Al Khor International School v. Gulf Contracting Co. (QFC 2022)
- Doha Bank v. KPMG (QFC App 2019)
qatarlaw.com ↗
The file →
- Jonathan David Sheppard v Jillion LLC; a Dubai-based lawyer
- He relied on AI research and cited two non-existent QFC cases
- The court found contempt but imposed no penal sanction
- Qatar International Court (QFC Court), Qatar
- 2025-11-12; the court said lawyers must verify AI-produced citations
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-11-10
Plaintiff's counsel filed briefs with hallucinated case citations and quotations, and the court issued a show-cause order but later discharged it.
Doe v. Univ. of N.C. Sys. · U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina · NC
“The Court has refrained from discharging the show cause order pending counsel's preparation of the article.”
reason.com ↗
The file →
- Doe v. Univ. of N.C. Sys.; Plaintiff's counsel
- Counsel filed documents with two nonexistent cases and hallucinated quotations
- Show-cause order issued, but no sanction imposed after the article
- W.D.N.C., federal court in North Carolina
- Order date: 2025-11-10; Chief Judge Martin Reidlinger said the article could help other lawyers
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
2025-11-10
Cal State filed a brief with faulty quotes and phantom quotations that an administrative law judge struck from the record.
California State University brief striking order · California State University · California Public Employment Relations Board · CA
“while “there is no proof that AI was, in fact the author” of a Cal State brief, the document “bears all the hallmarks of the hallucinations associated with AI-generated texts” and contains a series of misquotes Cal State failed to explain.”
Cases that don't exist
- Marshall v. Regis Educational Corporation
laist.com ↗
The file →
- California State University was the party whose brief was struck.
- The brief contained faulty quotes and phantom quotations from a 1981 decision.
- Administrative Law Judge Bernhard Rohrbacher ordered the filing struck from the record.
- The matter was before the California Public Employment Relations Board in California.
- CSU later acknowledged the brief had been written with AI assistance.
Fined
$2K
2025-11-05
Attorney LeRoy George Siddell filed an opposition with a fake quote and a fabricated citation in a criminal case, and the court sanctioned him $1,500.
People v. Alvarez · LeRoy George Siddell · California Court of Appeal, Fourth District · CA
““Attorney Siddell admitted to violating his professional duty by including a hallucinated citation and misrepresenting the law provided in other opinions.”
lanak-hanna.com ↗
The file →
- People v. Alvarez involved attorney LeRoy George Siddell.
- He filed an opposition containing a fabricated quote and a citation to a nonexistent decision.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal imposed a $1,500 sanction.
- The court was the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in California.
- The page says Siddell admitted using artificial intelligence and failing to check the brief.
Caught, not sanctioned
Google AI Overview
2025-11-04
A lawyer filed material using Google AI Overview that contained fabricated and misrepresented case law, and the court dealt with the AI misuse without listing a sanction.
Choksi v IPS · High Court
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Choksi v IPS involved a lawyer's AI-assisted filing.
- Google AI Overview was the named source of the fabrications.
- The entry lists fabricated and misrepresented case law but no sanction.
- High Court, UK.
- 4 November 2025; the page names Google AI Overview as the tool.
Fined
$5K
2025-11-04
A declaration with fabricated deposition quotations and citations was filed, and Judge Carlton Reeves ordered $5,000 in fees against the lawyer and client.
Pauliah v. Univ. of Miss. Medical Center · Mr. Begley · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · MS
“Manufacturing "facts," then presenting them to the Court as genuine, threatens to corrupt the Court's analysis and undermine the integrity of the judicial process at the summary judgment stage.”
reason.com ↗
The file →
- Pauliah v. Univ. of Miss. Medical Center; Mr. Begley and Dr. Pauliah were sanctioned.
- A declaration filed in opposition to summary judgment contained fabricated quotations and manufactured deposition citations.
- Judge Reeves levied $5,000 total, split $4,000 against Begley and $1,000 against Pauliah.
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi; federal; Mississippi.
- Order dated Nov. 4, 2025; the page says Pauliah admitted using generative AI and the court found bad faith.
Reprimanded
2025-11-01
An attorney filed AI-written family-law papers with fake citations; the Kammergericht Berlin reprimanded the lawyer for not reviewing them.
Invented Case Law Citations in Attorney’s Court Filing · Kammergericht Berlin
“As lawyers, they are “obligated” to do so, the court wrote.”
posteo.de ↗
The file →
- Family-law appeal by a mother seeking custody and court-cost assistance.
- Attorney filed court documents with citations the court found were obviously written with AI.
- Kammergericht Berlin reprimanded the attorney.
- Highest court in Berlin; ruling on a published family-law matter.
- Decision made in November of the prior year; court said the filing was 'obviously written with the help of AI.'
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-11-01
A plaintiff's lawyer quoted non-existent BGH decisions; the Frankfurt court condemned inventing citations and using chatbot-suggested sources.
Frankfurt court · Frankfurt court
“it is “among the fundamental obligations of the legal profession neither to invent citations nor to include unverified sources suggested by a chatbot in a court filing.””
posteo.de ↗
The file →
- Plaintiff's lawyer in Frankfurt quoted fake BGH decisions.
- The court addressed 'AI hallucinations.'
- No sanction is described on the page.
- Frankfurt court, Germany.
- Ruling from November of the prior year; court stressed lawyers must not invent citations.
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
2025-10-29
Adam Hyman filed an AI-generated divorce brief with fake cases and misquotes, and the Appellate Court of Maryland referred him to the Attorney Grievance Commission.
Adam Hyman divorce brief matter · Adam Hyman · Appellate Court of Maryland · MD
“it is unquestionably improper for an attorney to submit a brief with fake cases generated by AI.”
thedailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
- Adam Hyman was the lawyer referred to the Attorney Grievance Commission.
- He submitted a divorce brief prepared with ChatGPT that contained fake cases and misquotes.
- The court imposed a referral to the AGC, with no dollar amount stated.
- The incident was in the Appellate Court of Maryland in Maryland.
- The opinion was issued Oct. 29, 2025; Judge Kathryn Graeff said attorneys must verify cited authority.
Fined
2025-10-29
An applicant’s submission used non-existent or irrelevant case law and legislative provisions, and the adjudicator dismissed the application and awarded full costs.
Sky Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 373 · Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management · QLD
““If the applicant used AI or other sources in preparing the material they submitted, I am not satisfied they checked the accuracy of the information obtained”.”
qlsproctor.com.au ↗
The file →
- Sky Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 373; the applicant was sanctioned in a body corporate dispute.
- The submission contained numerous and persistent misrepresentations, including non-existent or irrelevant case law.
- The adjudicator dismissed the application and awarded full costs to the respondent.
- Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management, Queensland.
- 29 October 2025; the adjudicator said the scale of deficiencies amounted to an abuse of process.
Warned
2025-10-28
Attorney Hale filed a brief with hallucinated case citations; the court found a Rule 11 violation but imposed no fine and ordered notice to clients and future ND Ga. filings.
Boston v. Williams · Loletha Denise Hale · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division · GA
““an overwhelming majority of the cases cited by [the plaintiff’s attorney] either did not exist, did not support the proposition for which they were cited, or misquoted the authority.””
technologylaw.fkks.com ↗
The file →
- Boston v. Williams; attorney Loletha Denise Hale
- She filed an opposition brief containing fabricated/hallucinated case authority
- The court found a Rule 11 violation but did not levy a fine
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
- October 28, 2025; the court ordered client notice and 5 years of disclosure in ND Ga. cases
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-10-27
A lawyer filed a brief with fabricated citations; the database lists upcoming sanctions.
Anderson v. Akam Associates, Inc. · SC New York · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Anderson v. Akam Associates, Inc. involved a lawyer.
- The filing contained fabricated citations.
- The database says upcoming sanctions.
- The case was in SC New York.
- Date: 2025-10-27; the AI use was implied.
Filing dismissed
2025-10-23
ASBCA struck the contractor’s reply brief and denied leave to revise it after finding more than 70% of its citations were inaccurate due to AI use.
Huffman Construction · Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
smithlaw.com ↗
The file →
- Huffman Construction was sanctioned by the ASBCA.
- Counsel admitted using AI, which led to fictitious case citations and bad record cites.
- The Board struck the reply brief and denied leave to file a revised brief.
- Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, federal forum.
- Oct. 23, 2025; over 70% of the brief’s citations were inaccurate.
Fined
$1K
ChatGPT
2025-10-23
Counsel filed opposition papers with AI-generated false Louisiana case citations; the trial court sanctioned her and the appellate court affirmed.
In re: Sanctions Order of KENNEY (2025) · Connie P. Trieu · Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit · LA
“Plaintiff's counsel submitted legal authority and citations generated by “A.I.” software without verifying their authenticity.”
Cases that don't exist
- Burns v. State, 813 So.2d 574
- Smith v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp., 20-306 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/3/20), 308 So.3d 1216
- Doe v. Southwest Louisiana Hosp. Ass'n, 02-180 (La. App. 3 Cir. 7/10/02), 833 So.2d 1136
caselaw.findlaw.com ↗
The file →
- In re: Sanctions Order of KENNEY (2025) sanctioned Connie P. Trieu.
- She filed pleadings containing three fabricated Louisiana citations and other citation errors.
- The trial court ordered $1,368 in attorney's fees plus costs.
- Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, in Louisiana.
- Decided October 23, 2025; the opinion says the citations were generated by AI and notes ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot were used.
Fined
$227
2025-10-17
A pro se litigant filed fabricated case law and legal norms, and the tribunal imposed a monetary sanction of 227 GBP.
Chi Keung Lee & others v Blackpool B&B Limited · First-tier Tribunal
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Chi Keung Lee & others v Blackpool B&B Limited involved a pro se litigant.
- The filing contained fabricated case law and legal norms.
- The tribunal imposed a monetary sanction of 227 GBP.
- First-tier Tribunal, UK.
- 17 October 2025; the page lists a monetary sanction.
Referred to the bar
2025-10-17
A lawyer was referred to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner after written submissions cited three fake cases as SAET authorities.
Referral to the LPCC for the citation of fake cases · SAET
“The legal profession should be aware that SAET will not tolerate such conduct, and practitioners can expect similar referrals to the LPCC in similar circumstances.”
saet.sa.gov.au ↗
The file →
- SAET referred a lawyer to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner.
- Written submissions included three fake cases said to be SAET authorities.
- The outcome was a referral, with no dollar amount stated.
- The court was SAET in South Australia.
- 17 October 2025; Justice Steven Dolphin said such conduct was the first of its kind he knew of.
Warned
2025-10-16
Claimants filed 45 case-law citations in a £89m damages case, 18 were fictitious and many quotes bogus, and the court warned lawyers could face sanctions.
Qatar National Bank damages case · High Court
“Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect.”
lawsociety.org.zw ↗
The file →
- Qatar National Bank damages case involving the claimants and their solicitor
- 45 citations were filed; 18 were fictitious and many quotes were bogus
- The court did not impose a monetary sanction in the article; it issued a warning
- High Court, United Kingdom
- 2025-10-16; Dame Victoria Sharp said AI can generate incorrect responses and nonexistent sources
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-10-15
A self-represented party filed a brief with nonexistent or misstated cases, and the court denied costs because the brief was of no use.
T.B. v. K.M. · Saskatchewan family law division
Cases that don't exist
- A.M. v. C.H., 2019 SKQB 162
- Baker v. Baker, 2007 ONCA 329
- R.C. v. R.C., 2013 NSC 71
+1 more
grllp.com ↗
The file →
- T.B. v. K.M. involved K.M.'s filed brief with fake or misstated cases.
- The court found the cited authorities did not exist or were misrepresented.
- The court refused to award K.M. costs, effectively penalizing the misuse.
- Saskatchewan family law division, Saskatchewan.
- October 15, 2025; the judge said K.M. was responsible for ensuring the cases existed.
Fined
$6K
2025-10-13
A pro se claimant used AI to generate 46 inaccurate or misleading citations, and the tribunal imposed a costs order of 5881 GBP.
Hassan v ABC International Bank · Employment Tribunals
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Hassan v ABC International Bank involved AI-generated citations.
- The tribunal found 46 inaccurate or misleading citations, including 9 fictitious ones.
- It imposed a costs order of 5881 GBP.
- Employment Tribunals, UK.
- 13 October 2025; the page says the conduct was reckless and unreasonable.
Fined
$5K
Ghostwriter Legal
2025-10-10
James A. Johnson filed a motion with fabricated AI-generated citations, and Judge Terry F. Moorer reprimanded him and imposed sanctions.
United States v. McGee · James A. Johnson · US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · AL
“Somehow the message still has not been hammered home as the epidemic of citing fake cases continues unabated,”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- United States v. McGee involved James A. Johnson of Loxley, Ala.
- He filed a motion in a criminal case containing nonexistent legal citations generated by AI.
- Judge Terry F. Moorer imposed $5,000 in sanctions and reprimanded him.
- The court was the US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
- On 2025-10-10, Moorer said basic reprimands and small fines were not enough to deter the misconduct.
Fined
$1K
2025-10-10
Edward A. Quesada filed a brief with nonexistent and erroneous citations, and Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín imposed sanctions and ordered CLE.
Oneto v. Watson · Edward A. Quesada · US District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Oneto v. Watson involved Edward A. Quesada of Glendora, Calif.
- He filed a civil brief containing nonexistent and erroneous case citations.
- The court imposed a $1,000 sanction and ordered him to take an AI CLE course.
- The court was the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
- On 2025-10-10, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín said his conduct violated professional-conduct rules and showed a failure to keep abreast of technology.
Warned
2025-10-10
Defence lawyers filed documents with fake quotes and non-existent case judgments generated by AI, then re-filed them after the errors were found.
Supreme Court of Victoria murder trial · Supreme Court of Victoria · VIC
““It is not acceptable for AI to be used unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified,””
thedailyaus.com.au ↗
The file →
- Defence lawyers in the Victorian Supreme Court murder case
- They filed AI-generated documents containing fake quotes and non-existent judgments
- The court did not impose a monetary sanction; the documents were re-filed after discovery
- Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia
- August 2025; Justice James Elliott gave the quoted warning
Referred to the bar
2025-10-10
A Melbourne lawyer filed AI-generated family law citations, many of which did not exist, and the hearing was adjourned with referral for investigation.
Victorian family law matter · a Melbourne lawyer · Victorian legal complaints body · VIC
cgw.com.au ↗
The file →
- A Melbourne lawyer in a family law matter
- Used AI to generate case citations; many cases did not exist
- Hearing adjourned and the lawyer was referred for investigation
- Victorian legal complaints body, Victoria
- 2025-10-10; the article says the lawyer relied on AI-generated citations
Fined
2025-10-10
A junior solicitor filed fabricated or inaccurate AI-produced citations in a native title case, and the Court ordered indemnity costs against the firm.
Federal Court native title case · Federal Court of Australia
cgw.com.au ↗
The file →
- A junior solicitor and the law firm in a Federal Court native title case
- Relied on AI-produced citations that were fabricated or inaccurate
- Court ordered indemnity costs against the law firm
- Federal Court of Australia
- 2025-10-10; the article identifies the matter only generally and does not name the AI tool
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-10-09
A Massachusetts attorney filed a brief with faulty GAI-generated content, and the court order on the defendant’s supplemental motion addressed the filing.
Commonwealth v. Moraes · Middlesex Superior Court · MA
bostonbar.org ↗
The file →
- Commonwealth v. Moraes involved a Massachusetts attorney.
- The brief included faulty GAI-generated content.
- The page does not state any sanction was imposed.
- Middlesex Superior Court, Massachusetts.
- October 9, 2025; the article cites a memorandum and order on the defendant’s supplemental combined motion to dismiss.
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
2025-10-06
A lawyer filed grounds of appeal with at least two non-existent authorities, and the judge ordered the solicitor to show cause why the matter should not be referred to the SRA.
AK v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Upper Tribunal
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- AK v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a lawyer's appeal grounds.
- The false citations likely came from unchecked generative-AI drafting.
- The judge directed the solicitor to show cause about an SRA referral.
- Upper Tribunal, UK.
- 6 October 2025; the page names ChatGPT as the AI tool.
Fined
2025-10-06
A lawyer filed briefs with AI-fabricated case law in a dispute involving T.D. Jakes, and Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctioned the filing for misrepresentations and fabrications.
Jakes v. Youngblood · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania · PA
“At this point, any attorney—but especially attorneys like [the sanctioned lawyer] with a cosmopolitan, multistate, practice—cannot plead ignorance to justify their use or misuse of AI in drafting legal documents.”
klemchuk.com ↗
The file →
- Jakes v. Youngblood involved a lawyer sanctioned for AI-fabricated case law.
- The lawyer submitted court filings containing misrepresentations and fabrications of relevant case law.
- The court imposed sanctions, but the article does not state an amount.
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.
- Oct. 6, 2025; the article quotes Judge P. Kevin Castel on AI misuse.
Fined
$2K
2025-10-03
Counsel filed an opposition to dismissal with AI-hallucinated citations; the Court of Appeal found misconduct and fined him.
People v. Alvarez · LeRoy George Siddell · California Court of Appeal, Division 1, Fourth Appellate District · CA
“The conduct here is not as egregious as what occurred in Noland.”
ethics-lawyer.blog ↗
The file →
- People v. Alvarez; counsel submitted an opposition to dismissal in a criminal prosecution matter.
- The filing contained AI-hallucinated citations and counsel said he relied on staff and did not closely check it.
- The court sanctioned counsel $1,500.
- California Court of Appeal, Division 1, Fourth Appellate District.
- Filed October 3, 2025; the court said the case was disturbing because it involved a criminal defendant’s rights.
Fined
2025-10-02
A Mississippi state court judge imposed monetary sanctions on plaintiffs’ counsel for filing fictitious cases and quotations generated by AI.
FormanWatkins’s Mississippi state court case · Mississippi state court · MS
formanwatkins.com ↗
The file →
- Mississippi state court case involving plaintiffs’ counsel
- Counsel filed fictitious cases and quotations generated by AI
- The judge imposed monetary sanctions
- Mississippi state court in Mississippi
- October 2, 2025; described as one of the first Mississippi state-court monetary sanctions over hallucinated case law
Reprimanded
$150
2025-10-01
Cathleen Jane Siebrecht filed a brief with hallucinated case citations, and the Iowa Court of Appeals imposed a public reprimand and $150 penalty.
In re Cathleen Jane Siebrecht · Cathleen Jane Siebrecht · Iowa Court of Appeals · IA
““The Iowa Court of Appeals discovered that two cases you cited were entirely hallucinated and at other points the brief incorrectly characterized the language or holding of the source cited,””
yahoo.com ↗
The file →
- In re Cathleen Jane Siebrecht; attorney Cathleen Jane Siebrecht of Pleasant Hill
- She filed a brief in a 2025 termination-of-parent-rights appeal using AI and false case citations
- Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board issued a public reprimand; court imposed a $150 penalty
- Iowa Court of Appeals, Iowa
- October 2025; court said two cited cases were “entirely hallucinated” and required ethics training in lieu of payment
Fined
$1K
2025-10-01
Michael Fourte filed briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and quotations, and Justice Joel M. Cohen sanctioned him and referred the matter to ethics committees.
Pamela Ader v. JS Property Holdings LLC · Michael Fourte · New York State Supreme Court, New York County · NY
“"the use of AI is not the problem per se; instead, “[t]he problem arises when attorneys abdicate their responsibility to ensure their factual and legal representations to the Court—even if originally sourced from AI—are accurate.””
nydailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
- Pamela Ader v. JS Property Holdings LLC; Michael Fourte was sanctioned.
- Fourte filed briefs containing AI-hallucinated citations and quotations, then added more in opposition papers.
- Cohen sanctioned him and also sent the decision to ethics committees.
- New York State Supreme Court, New York City, New York.
- October 8, 2025; Justice Joel M. Cohen said counsel could not delegate candor to a software program.
Fined
$5K
ChatGPT
2025-10-01
Mr. Laprade filed proceedings with false AI-generated citations and other authorities, and the Superior Court of Quebec imposed a $5,000 penalty.
Specter Aviation Limited c. Laprade · Jean Laprade · Superior Court of Québec
“The Court therefore imposed a $5,000 sanction on the Defendant, both to punish his conduct and to deter similar behaviour in the future.”
gowlingwlg.com ↗
The file →
- Specter Aviation Limited v. Laprade; Mr. Laprade was sanctioned
- He filed proceedings with false citations, decisions, and references produced using AI
- The court imposed a $5,000 penalty
- Superior Court of Quebec, Quebec
- October 1, 2025; the court said AI cannot justify inaccurate or fabricated documents
Warned
2025-10-01
Judge Rudolph Contreras warned Donald Quinn after a brief apparently violated rules by including AI hallucinations in citations.
Quinn Patton filings in Washington, D.C. district court · Donald Quinn · U.S. District Court
“further violations will not be tolerated and may result in sanctions and/or referral to a disciplinary committee.”
thedailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
- Donald Quinn was warned over hallucinations in a Washington, D.C. filing.
- He included hallucinations in an opposition brief.
- Judge Rudolph Contreras warned of sanctions and possible referral.
- U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
- October 2025; Contreras said Quinn had apparently violated civil procedure and bar rules.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-10-01
Gordon Rees apologized after filing a bankruptcy paper riddled with inaccurate and non-existent citations generated by AI.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani incident · Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani · U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Alabama) · AL
“Counsel shall not file or otherwise present to the court any documents which contain AI-hallucinated citations or fictitious or non-existent legal citations.”
compliancehub.wiki ↗
The file →
- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani was involved in the incident.
- Its bankruptcy filing contained inaccurate and non-existent AI-generated citations.
- The page says the firm received monetary sanctions and a warning, but gives no amount here.
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Alabama; federal.
- October 2025; the firm promised updated AI policies and a cite-checking policy.
Filing dismissed
2025-10-01
ASBCA struck a law firm's reply brief after finding over 70% of the citations were inaccurate and included fabricated citations.
ASBCA reply brief sanction (October 2025) · Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
“The ASBCA called the safeguards “woefully insufficient.””
burr.com ↗
The file →
- An unnamed law firm was sanctioned by the ASBCA for Gen-AI misuse.
- Its reply brief used AI technology and more than 70% of the citations were inaccurate.
- ASBCA struck the reply brief as the sanction.
- Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, federal.
- October 2025; government counsel and the Board found even more fabrications than the government had flagged.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
2025-09-30
Jisuh Lee filed a factum with ChatGPT-generated fake cases and later admitted she misled the court about who prepared it; the court treated it as criminal contempt.
Ko v. Li · Jisuh Lee · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
““Delivering a factum containing non-existent legal submissions creates a serious risk of a miscarriage of justice.””
benmor.com ↗
The file →
- Ko v. Li involved lawyer Jisuh Lee and a factum with fabricated authorities.
- The article says she used ChatGPT and failed to verify the citations.
- The court treated the matter as criminal contempt, with no sanction yet imposed on this page.
- Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada.
- On 2025-09-30, Lee admitted she alone used ChatGPT and had lied about staff involvement.
Filing dismissed
2025-09-30
A relator disclosed an expert report with generative-AI hallucinations, and the federal judge dismissed the FCA suit after related sanctions motions were filed.
U.S. ex rel. Khoury v. Intermountain Healthcare Inc et al. · Gary Giampetruzzi, Jessica R. Montes and Vanna Mavromatis · District of Utah · UT
paulhastings.com ↗
The file →
- U.S. ex rel. Khoury v. Intermountain Healthcare Inc et al. involved relator-side counsel and an expert report.
- The report contained generative AI hallucinations, including bogus deposition testimony and fictitious quotes from government manuals.
- On 2025-09-30, the federal judge granted the United States’ motion to intervene and dismiss the case.
- The case was dismissed with prejudice to the relator and without prejudice to the United States.
- District of Utah; the article does not name the AI tool, but says the expert used a generative AI tool and the parties had motion practice over sanctions.
Warned
Copilot
2025-09-29
A lawyer filed fabricated and misrepresented case law using Microsoft Copilot, and the tribunal issued a show-cause order.
ANPV & SAPV v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Upper Tribunal
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- ANPV & SAPV v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a lawyer filing.
- Microsoft Copilot was the named AI tool.
- The filing contained fabricated and misrepresented case law, and the tribunal issued a show-cause order.
- Upper Tribunal, UK.
- 29 September 2025; the page lists a show-cause order.
Fined
$620
2025-09-29
Mr Lalwani cited a fictitious AI-generated authority in written submissions and was ordered to pay S$800 in personal costs.
Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen · Mr Lalwani Anil Mangan · General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
“It follows that the citation of a fictitious AI-generated authority to the court, whether intentionally or otherwise, is wholly impermissible.”
elitigation.sg ↗
The file →
- Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen; Counsel for the Claimants
- Written submissions cited a fictitious authority produced by a generative AI tool
- Court ordered CC to pay costs personally to the Defendant
- General Division of the High Court of Singapore
- 29 September 2025; the judge said fictitious AI-generated authority is wholly impermissible
Warned
2025-09-29
Hale filed a brief with 17 of 24 cited cases either nonexistent, irrelevant, or misquoted, and Judge William Ray ordered her to show cause on sanctions.
Selena Boston v. Katt Williams · Loletha Hale · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · GA
“The currency we deal with is honesty and integrity.”
courthousenews.com ↗
The file →
- Loletha Hale in the Boston v. Williams assault suit
- Her opposition brief contained 17 bad citations, some AI 'hallucinations'
- Judge Ray ordered her to explain why she should not be sanctioned
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
- 2025-09-29; Ray said she violated Rule 11 and would report it to the State Bar
Fined
$18K
2025-09-26
Counsel filed a factum with hallucinated case authorities, and the court later ordered costs paid personally by appellant's lead counsel.
Reddy v. Saroya · Christopher Souster of Nimmons Law Office · Court of Appeal of Alberta · AB
“When used without safeguards, large language models frequently introduce confusion and delay into proceedings, and worse, constitute an abuse of process that may potentially bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”
canadianlawyermag.com ↗
The file →
- Reddy v Saroya involved the appellant's lead counsel.
- The factum contained fabricated case authorities and seven cited cases could not be found.
- The court later ordered $17,550 plus GST payable personally by counsel.
- Court of Appeal of Alberta, Alberta.
- The page links the issue to a large language model but does not name a specific tool.
Warned
2025-09-25
The court noted generative AI without proper verification in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Shaporov v. Levine · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
natlawreview.com ↗
The file →
- Shaporov v. Levine; generative AI use was noted
- The filing lacked proper verification and violated Rule 11
- The court issued a warning-style notice, not a monetary sanction
- District of New Jersey, New Jersey
- Order dated 2025-09-25; page cites improper verification
Filing dismissed
ChatGPT
2025-09-25
Oready, LLC filed protest briefs with fabricated, mismatched, and misquoted GAO citations, and GAO dismissed the protests as an abuse of process.
Oready, LLC · Government Accountability Office
“Our decision here is not based on the use of AI as a method of research; it is based on the protester’s repeated reliance on non-existent citations or decisions without verifying their correctness and applicability to the arguments being presented.”
centrelawgroup.com ↗
The file →
- Oready, LLC was dismissed after filing AI-tainted protest briefs.
- The filings included fabricated GAO decisions, mismatched citations, and misquoted holdings.
- GAO dismissed the protests as an abuse of process.
- Government Accountability Office; federal procurement protest forum.
- Sept. 25, 2025; GAO said the issue was unverified non-existent citations, not AI use itself.
Fined
$2K
ChatGPT
2025-09-23
Lawrence Chang filed a reconsideration motion with AI-generated bogus citations and the court struck the motion and sanctioned him.
Lawrence Chang · Lawrence Chang · Texas state court · TX
“The court finds “good cause supports the imposition of sanctions in order to deter such conduct in the future, which amounts to serious misconduct that threatens to impugn the integrity of the courts and the administration of justice,” Guerra Gamble said.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Lawrence Chang was sanctioned in a Texas state-court matter involving his motion for reconsideration.
- He admitted using AI and not checking the accuracy of the citations it produced.
- The court ordered him to pay $2,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses and struck the reconsideration motion.
- Judge Maya Guerra Gamble issued the order in Texas state court.
- Chang said he pasted his draft into ChatGPT’s legal tool to improve his writing.
Fined
$24K
2025-09-23
Two lawyers filed motions with at least 55 defective citations; the court trimmed fee sanctions and ordered them to pay opposing firms.
Ibrahim Reyes and Jose R. Olmo-Rodriguez sanctions matter · Ibrahim Reyes; Jose R. Olmo-Rodriguez · U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico · PR
““but the sheer number of inaccurate or nonexistent citations suggests otherwise,””
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
- Ibrahim Reyes and Jose R. Olmo-Rodriguez were sanctioned in Puerto Rico.
- They filed motions with at least 55 defective citations that the court said suggested AI use.
- The court ordered $24,492 in fees, not the nearly $88,000 sought.
- U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
- Sept. 23 opinion by Chief U.S. District Judge Raúl Arias-Marxuach; the court said the citations were inaccurate or nonexistent.
Fined
$24K
2025-09-23
The plaintiffs filed AI-slop-tainted papers, and the court ordered them to pay more than $24,000 in attorney fees as a sanction.
Puerto Rico Soccer League NFP, Corp. v. Federacion Puertorriquena de Futbol · D.P.R. · PR
ripslawlibrarian.wordpress.com ↗
The file →
- Puerto Rico Soccer League NFP, Corp. v. Federacion Puertorriquena de Futbol; the plaintiffs were sanctioned
- The filing contained AI slop and hallucinated content
- More than $24,000 in attorney fees was ordered
- D.P.R., Puerto Rico
- Sept. 23, 2025; the article says other courts were following ByoPlanet’s example
Fined
2025-09-22
The court sanctioned plaintiffs’ counsel after briefs in two related cases included AI-generated false citations with real case names but fake quotes and parentheticals.
Seither & Cherry Quad Cities, Inc. v. Oakland Automation, LLC · William G. Tishkoff and Christopher M. Vukelich · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · MI
“At this point, it ‘is no secret that generative AI programs are known to ‘hallucinate’ nonexistent cases, and with the advent of AI, courts have seen a rash of cases in which both counsel and pro se litigants have cited such fake, hallucinated cases, in their briefs,’”
minnlawyer.com ↗
The file →
- Seither & Cherry Quad Cities, Inc. v. Oakland Automation, LLC; plaintiffs’ counsel William G. Tishkoff and Christopher M. Vukelich
- Briefs in two related cases contained AI-generated false citations with real case names but fake quotes and parentheticals
- Judge Behm imposed monetary sanctions and ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to pay defense costs
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan
- Order issued Sept. 22, 2025; court said the errors were not in bad faith but still warranted deterrence
Fined
$600
2025-09-19
A pro se litigant filed papers with fabricated citations, false quotes, and misrepresented legal norms; the court imposed a $600 monetary sanction.
Ali v. IT People Corporation · E.D. Michigan · MI
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Ali v. IT People Corporation involved a pro se litigant.
- The submission used fabricated citations, false quotes, and misrepresented legal norms.
- The court imposed a $600 monetary sanction.
- The case was in E.D. Michigan.
- Date: 2025-09-19; the database labels the AI use as implied.
Warned
2025-09-18
The court listed erroneous and non-existent references in the conclusions and then disregarded those sources.
Court of Appeal in Ghent ruling · Court of Appeal in Ghent
“The court called such behavior completely unacceptable.”
ictrechtswijzer.be ↗
The file →
- Court of Appeal in Ghent ruling; no attorney named
- The filing contained erroneous and non-existent references
- The court disregarded those sources and criticized the conduct
- Court of Appeal in Ghent, Belgium
- Dated 2025-09-18; the court said the behavior was completely unacceptable
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
2025-09-18
Barrister Muhammad Mujeebur Rahman cited a non-existent case generated with ChatGPT and was referred to the Bar Standards Board.
Y (China) · Muhammad Mujeebur Rahman · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“We do however conclude that this is a case where referral to a regulator, in this instance the BSB, is most definitely appropriate”
localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk ↗
The file →
- Muhammad Mujeebur Rahman was the barrister referred to the BSB.
- He filed an immigration appeal relying on the bogus case Y (China) generated with ChatGPT.
- The Upper Tribunal referred him to the Bar Standards Board; no contempt or police action was taken.
- The court was the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) in the UK.
- On 2025-09-18, judges said he had not ensured the accuracy of what was placed before the tribunal.
Fined
2025-09-15
Justice Mary V. Rosado sanctioned Tyrone Blackburn after his motion papers cited non-existent cases and contained incorrect and false citations.
Monique Facey v. Liane Fisher et al. · Tyrone Blackburn · NY Sup. Ct., NY Cty. · NY
posts.diddydocket.com ↗
The file →
- Monique Facey v. Liane Fisher et al.; Tyrone Blackburn was sanctioned.
- His motion papers were riddled with incorrect and false citations.
- The court awarded sanctions and fees.
- NY Sup. Ct., NY Cty., New York state court.
- 2025-09-15; Justice Mary V. Rosado ordered him to explain whether he used AI chatbots.
Fined
$10K
ChatGPT
2025-09-12
Amir Mostafavi filed appellate briefs with fabricated AI-generated citations and quotations, and the California Court of Appeal sanctioned him $10,000 and referred him to the state bar.
Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. · Amir Mostafavi · California Court of Appeal · CA
“Nearly all of the legal quotations in plaintiff’s opening brief, and many of the quotations in plaintiff’s reply brief, are fabricated,”
Cases that don't exist
- Schimmel v. Levin (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 81
counselpro.ai ↗
The file →
- Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P.; attorney Amir Mostafavi was sanctioned.
- He used ChatGPT and other AI tools to enhance appellate briefs without verifying citations.
- The court imposed a $10,000 sanction and referred him to the state bar.
- California Court of Appeal, California; the case was a state appellate decision.
- The article says 21 of 23 opening-brief quotations were fabricated and the court faulted the filings.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-09-11
The NCLT relied on fake or non-existent judgments apparently generated through AI, and the Supreme Court set aside its order and the NCLAT's judgment.
Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. · NCLT · Supreme Court of India
“A judicial decision relying on fake or hallucinated precedents is no decision in law.”
casemine.com ↗
The file →
- Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.; NCLT relied on fake precedents.
- The tribunal used fake, non-existent, or AI-generated hallucinated legal precedents.
- The Supreme Court set aside the NCLT order and the NCLAT judgment; no monetary sanction is stated.
- Supreme Court of India; the article names the court but no judge.
- Decided 2025-09-11; the Court said there is zero tolerance for AI-generated legal material without verification.
Referred to the bar
2025-09-03
A Victorian legal practitioner generated a list of case law with AI, failed to verify it, and was referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board with his practising certificate varied.
Lawyer caught using AI-generated false citations in court case penalised in Australian first · Victorian Legal Services Board · VIC
mondaq.com ↗
The file →
- A Victorian legal practitioner was sanctioned for AI-generated false citations.
- He used AI to generate a list of case law and did not verify its accuracy.
- He was referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board and his practising certificate was varied.
- The article says he could no longer act as a principal lawyer or handle trust money for two years.
- The incident is described as an Australian first; no AI tool is named.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-09-03
A court-appointed special master found Dr. Sawyer cited nonexistent sources from AI use and said the error might warrant costs and cross-examination but not exclusion.
In re: Valsartan Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation · Dr. Sawyer · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
“Dr. Sawyer's citation to non-existent sources due to his use of an artificial intelligence tool without adequate verification of the sources generated by the artificial intelligence tool, while perhaps warranting an award of costs in favor the defense and permitting cross examination of Dr. Sawyer during the trial on his failure to verify the sources cited in his report, does not warrant exclusion of his opinions as they are otherwise the product of reliable scientific methodology and are supported by "good grounds," especially given "the liberal thrust of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the flexible nature of the Daubert inquiry, and the proper roles of the judge and jury in evaluating the ultimate credibility of an expert's opinion" ….”
reason.com ↗
The file →
- In re: Valsartan Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation; Dr. Sawyer was challenged over fake citations in his expert report.
- He used an artificial intelligence tool to help locate sources, and multiple cited sources were found to be nonexistent.
- The court did not exclude his opinions, but said the problem could warrant costs and cross-examination.
- U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; the article says the decision was handed down Sept. 3.
- The page says Dr. Sawyer and counsel never identified the particular AI tool, and the judge cited the liberal thrust of the FRE and Daubert.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-09-01
A petition was withdrawn after opposing counsel exposed fabricated citations that invented paragraphs from Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi.
Greenopolis Welfare Association v. Narender Singh · Delhi High Court · DL
Cases that don't exist
- Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi
medianama.com ↗
The file →
- Greenopolis Welfare Association v. Narender Singh was a flat-possession dispute.
- The petition quoted invented paragraphs from a landmark judgment.
- The petition was withdrawn after the fabricated citations were exposed.
- Delhi High Court, Delhi.
- September 2025; it quoted paragraphs 73 and 74 from a 27-paragraph judgment.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-09-01
A Delhi High Court petition was withdrawn after opposing counsel exposed entirely fabricated citations and phantom paragraphs from a real judgment.
Delhi High Court September 2025 matter · Delhi High Court
medianama.com ↗
The file →
- Delhi High Court petition
- Opposing counsel exposed entirely fabricated citations, including phantom paragraphs
- The petition was withdrawn; no sanction is stated
- Delhi High Court
- September 2025; the article says the real judgment had only 27 paragraphs
Filing dismissed
2025-09-01
GAO dismissed four Oready protest filings after repeated Gen-AI misuse and hallucinated citations in the protests.
Oready, LLC bid protest (September 2025 GAO decision) · Oready, LLC · Government Accountability Office
burr.com ↗
The file →
- Oready, LLC was sanctioned in a GAO bid protest decision after repeated Gen-AI misuse.
- The filings contained hallucinated citations and other inaccurate legal assertions.
- GAO dismissed four protest filings as the sanction.
- Government Accountability Office, federal procurement tribunal.
- September 2025; the report says Oready had filed 15 pro se protests in eight months.
Warned
2025-08-28
The court ordered Cassie D. Preston and Gordon Rees to appear and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for making filings with AI-fabricated citations.
CASE NO.: 25-30256-CLH JACKSON · Cassie D. Preston; Gordon Rees · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Montana · MT
websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com ↗
The file →
- CASE NO.: 25-30256-CLH JACKSON involved Cassie D. Preston and Gordon Rees
- The filing allegedly contained AI-fabricated citations
- The court issued an order to show cause rather than impose sanctions immediately
- U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Montana
- August 28, 2025; the page does not name the AI tool or any fake citations
A pro se plaintiff filed a brief citing a non-existent Third Circuit case generated by AI, and Judge Karoline Mehalchick sanctioned him.
Allbaugh v. Univ. of Scranton · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · PA
“Rule 11 does not prohibit the use of generative AI, however, it does require parties to verify that they are not submitting briefs to the Court which rely on fictitious cases.”
Cases that don't exist
- Allbaugh v. Univ. of Scranton, 2025 WL 2484188
cgalaw.com ↗
The file →
- Allbaugh v. Univ. of Scranton involved a pro se plaintiff sanctioned for an AI-generated fake citation.
- The plaintiff cited a non-existent Third Circuit opinion in a brief.
- Judge Karoline Mehalchick imposed sanctions for the misuse of AI and the false citation.
- The case was in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- On 2025-08-28, the court said parties must verify briefs do not rely on fictitious cases.
Warned
2025-08-20
IBS Government Services, Inc. filed briefs with fabricated or misquoted GAO cases, and GAO denied the protest on the merits while repeating its warning.
IBS Government Services, Inc. · Government Accountability Office
centrelawgroup.com ↗
The file →
- IBS Government Services, Inc. faced a GAO warning after filing problematic citations.
- The filings included fabricated or misquoted GAO cases.
- GAO denied the protest on the merits but repeated its Raven warning verbatim.
- Government Accountability Office; federal bid protest forum.
- Aug. 20, 2025; the decision repeated the sanctions warning.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-08-19
Wheatley J said AI-generated references were fabricated and misleading and adopted redaction of false case citations.
JML Rose Pty Ltd v Jorgensen (No 3) · Federal Court of Australia
“There has been an approach, which I will adopt, of redacting false case citations so that such information is not further propagated by AI systems.”
counselmagazine.co.uk ↗
The file →
- JML Rose Pty Ltd v Jorgensen (No 3) in the Federal Court of Australia
- The court discussed erroneously generated references that were fabricated, fictional, false and fake
- No sanction amount or sanction was reported on the page
- Federal Court of Australia, Australia
- 19 August 2025; Wheatley J said false case citations should be redacted
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-08-19
A trial court order cited four AI-generated non-existent cases, and the High Court refused to set it aside and dismissed the revision.
R.P.No.1658 of 2023 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
“The Court held that an order is not vitiated by the mere inclusion of non-existent AI-generated citations if the legal principles applied to the facts are correct under the law of the land.”
Cases that don't exist
- Subramani v. M.Natarajan((2013) 14 SCC 95
- Chidambaram PIllai v. SAL Ramasamy(1071 (2) SCC 68
- Lakshmi Devi v. K.Prabha((2006) 5 SCC 551
+1 more
lekhanews.in ↗
The file →
- R.P.No.1658 of 2023 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court
- Trial court order relied on four AI-generated non-existent citations
- High Court dismissed the revision; no sanction was imposed
- Andhra Pradesh High Court, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh
- Decided 2025-08-19; judge accepted the trial judge's explanation and warned to verify sources
An unnamed Victorian solicitor filed an AI-generated list of entirely non-existent citations in a family law dispute and had his practising certificate varied.
First-ever Aussie lawyer sanctioned for AI use · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
““the incident caused significant stress but was unlikely to be repeated.””
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
- Unnamed Victorian solicitor in a family law dispute
- Submitted AI-generated legal citations that could not be verified
- Practising certificate varied; no longer a principal lawyer
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Victoria
- Incident occurred in July 2024; VLSB+C confirmed variation on 19 August 2025
Reprimanded
2025-08-15
Mr Dayal filed AI-generated false citations in a court submission and had his practising certificate varied, barring him from running his own law practice.
Mr Dayal · Mr Dayal · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
ia.acs.org.au ↗
The file →
- Mr Dayal was penalised after filing fake AI-generated citations in a submission.
- He admitted he did not verify the contents before filing.
- His practising certificate was varied, so he cannot act as a principal lawyer or run his own practice.
- The matter was in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
- The article says the regulator acted in mid-August and the lawyer used AI-based legal software.
Referred to the bar
Claude
2025-08-15
A lawyer filed submissions citing four non-existent cases based on Claude AI research, and Judge Gerrard ordered personal costs and referred the conduct.
JNE24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1314 · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
“Legal principles are not simply slogans which can be affixed to submissions without context or analysis.”
mpslaw.com.au ↗
The file →
- JNE24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship involved a lawyer whose submissions cited four cases.
- The citations came from Claude AI research and the cases did not exist or did not support the propositions.
- Judge Gerrard ordered the lawyer to pay costs personally and referred the conduct to the regulatory body.
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).
- 2025-08-15; the court declined to reproduce the citations to avoid contributing to case hallucinations.
In Mavy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, the court sanctioned Maren Ann-Miller Bam for a brief citing AI-generated fake cases.
Mavy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · Maren Ann-Miller Bam · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · AZ
“The Court does not take this action lightly.”
Cases that don't exist
- Brown v. Colvin
- Wofford v. Berryhill
- Hobbs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
cronkitenews.azpbs.org ↗
The file →
- Mavy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration; attorney Maren Ann-Miller Bam was sanctioned.
- Her Social Security appeal brief included AI-generated fabricated, misleading, or unsupported citations.
- Judge Alison Bachus sanctioned her and ordered notice to the three judges named in the fake opinions.
- U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona; federal court in Arizona.
- Aug. 14, 2025; the article says 12 of 19 cited cases were fake and mentions ChatGPT-generated hallucinations.
Warned
2025-08-14
Rishi Nathwani filed murder-case submissions containing fake quotes and nonexistent AI-generated citations; the court delayed resolution by 24 hours and issued a warning, not a sanction.
[Rishi Nathwani matter] · Rishi Nathwani · Supreme Court of Victoria
“"At the risk of understatement, the manner in which these events have unfolded is unsatisfactory," Elliott told lawyers on Thursday.”
cbsnews.com ↗
The file →
- Rishi Nathwani filed submissions in a murder case with fabricated AI-generated quotes and nonexistent judgments.
- The court discovered the citations did not exist and the submission contained fictitious quotes.
- The article says the case was delayed 24 hours and no monetary sanction is reported.
- Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia.
- Justice James Elliott said counsel must independently and thoroughly verify AI output; the tool used was not identified.
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
2025-08-12
A barrister filed ChatGPT-drafted grounds with a fictitious Court of Appeal authority and was found to have attempted to mislead the tribunal and referred to the BSB.
MS (Bangladesh) · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“attempted to mislead”
searchthe.law ↗
The file →
- MS (professional conduct: AI generated documents) is the named matter.
- ChatGPT-drafted grounds cited a fictitious Court of Appeal authority.
- The barrister was referred to the Bar Standards Board.
- The court was the Upper Tribunal (IAC).
- Promulgated 12 August 2025; the barrister produced further unverified AI output after a short adjournment.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-08-01
A Victorian solicitor filed AI-generated content with inaccurate citations and was later disciplined by the Victorian Legal Services Board.
Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166 · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
lst.org.au ↗
The file →
- Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166 involved a Victorian solicitor
- The solicitor filed AI-generated content containing inaccurate citations
- The Victorian Legal Services Board imposed discipline including loss of principal rights and trust-money authority
- The underlying matter was in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
- In August 2025, the sanction included two years of supervised practice with quarterly reporting
Filing dismissed
2025-08-01
CBCA dismissed Oready's appeal without prejudice after records showed the certified claim included hallucinated case law.
Oready, LLC CBCA appeal (August 2025) · Oready, LLC · Civilian Board of Contract Appeals
burr.com ↗
The file →
- Oready, LLC was identified in a CBCA appeal involving hallucinated case law.
- The appeal records showed Gen-AI misuse in the certified claim.
- CBCA dismissed the appeal without prejudice.
- Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, federal.
- August 2025; the appeal was also dismissed because it was premature.
Reprimanded
2025-08-01
A solicitor tendered a list and summary of legal authorities that did not exist, and the Victorian Legal Services Board varied his practising certificate.
Dayal · Mr Dayal · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
“The use of technology is an integral part of efficient modern legal practice.”
cowellclarke.com.au ↗
The file →
- Dayal and Mr Dayal were sanctioned after tendering authorities that did not exist.
- The filing used AI and contained false or fictitious legal authorities.
- The Victorian Legal Services Board varied his practising certificate; no amount was stated.
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Victoria.
- August 2025; he could no longer practise as principal or handle trust moneys and had supervised practice for two years.
Fined
2025-08-01
A Victorian solicitor filed fictional AI-generated cases in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and lost his ability to practise as a principal lawyer, handle trust money and operate his own practice.
Victorian solicitor matter · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
mccullough.com.au ↗
The file →
- A Victorian solicitor was sanctioned in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
- He submitted fictional AI-generated cases to the court.
- He lost his ability to practise as a principal lawyer, handle trust money and operate his own practice.
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia; Australia.
- August 2025; the page says this was the first Australian lawyer sanctioned for misusing AI in court.
Fined
2025-07-30
A UK law firm filed an application with two AI-generated fake cases, then the claim was struck out with indemnity costs and a wasted costs order was made.
Birmingham City University claim · unnamed UK law firm · Divisional Court
“His Honour Judge Charman found that the solicitor’s and firm’s conduct was improper, unreasonable and negligent, applying the Divisional Court’s June guidance from Ayinde.”
vinciworks.com ↗
The file →
- Unnamed UK law firm in a Birmingham City University claim
- Filed an application citing two fictitious AI-generated cases
- Claim was struck out with indemnity costs and a wasted costs order followed
- Divisional Court / UK, in a Birmingham City University matter
- 30 July 2025; fake cases were generated by an AI research feature in legal software
Referred to the bar
$1K
Copilot
2025-07-29
The attorney filed papers with AI-generated case summaries and misleading citations, and the court fined him $1,000 and referred him to the Attorney Grievance Committee.
Idehen v. Stoute-Phillip · Innocent Chinweze · New York trial court · NY
“The judge, Kimon C. Thermos, called the excuse an “incredible and unsupported statement.””
nysba.org ↗
The file →
- Idehen v. Stoute-Phillip; the attorney for the landlord
- Papers included cites to real cases that did not support the propositions stated and AI-generated summaries
- The court imposed a $1,000 fine and referred the attorney to grievance authorities
- New York trial court
- Counsel first said he used Microsoft Copilot and did not read the cases cited
Warned
2025-07-25
A representative filed authorities the tribunal could not verify and found some propositions were not in the cited cases, treating the false citations as unreasonable conduct.
Chandra v Royal Mail Group · The Claimant’s representative · Employment tribunal
““12. While these appeared to be important and relevant citations of law, the tribunal on investigation could not find those propositions of law in those cases, and could not find one of the cases referred to. It seemed to the tribunal that these may have been generated by AI””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
- Chandra v Royal Mail Group involved the claimant’s representative.
- He cited authorities that could not be verified and one case that did not exist.
- The tribunal found the false citations were unreasonable conduct.
- Employment tribunal; jurisdiction and location were not stated beyond the tribunal.
- 25 July 2025; the tribunal said the citations may have been generated by AI.
Warned
2025-07-25
Bione X, LLC filed citations with hallmarks of cases generated by AI, and GAO dismissed the protest for failure to state a claim while warning about sanctions.
Bione X, LLC · Government Accountability Office
centrelawgroup.com ↗
The file →
- Bione X, LLC was dismissed after AI-like citations appeared in its filing.
- GAO said the citations had hallmarks of cases generated by AI.
- The protest was dismissed for failure to state a claim and GAO reiterated its sanctions warning.
- Government Accountability Office; federal protest decision.
- July 25, 2025; GAO focused on unverified AI drafting.
Referred to the bar
$100K
ChatGPT
2025-07-24
A federal judge sanctioned three Butler Snow LLP attorneys for filing motions written by generative AI that included false case citations.
Frankie Johnson v. Jefferson S. Dunn et al. · Butler Snow attorneys · United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · AL
“"failing to prevent AI hallucinations in legal filings"”
prnewswire.com ↗
The file →
- Johnson v. Dunn; three Butler Snow LLP attorneys
- Filed five fabricated citations in a case
- Disqualified and referred to bar regulators in every state where they were licensed
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
- July 23, 2025; Judge Anna M. Manasco issued the order
Caught, not sanctioned
Perplexity AI
2025-07-23
A clerk used Perplexity AI and produced fabricated party names, invented precedents, and wrong statements of state law, leading Judge Henry T. Wingate to vacate the order.
Jackson Fed’n of Teachers v. State · Southern District of Mississippi · MS
“technical mistake”
wabarnews.org ↗
The file →
- Jackson Fed’n of Teachers v. State; a clerk
- Used Perplexity AI and generated fabricated party names and invented precedents
- Order was vacated; no sanction amount stated
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
- July 23, 2025; Judge Henry T. Wingate tried to remove the original from the public docket
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-07-23
An LIP filed fabricated tax cases generated by AI, and the Upper Tribunal declined sanctions while noting systemic risks.
HMRC v Gunnarsson · Upper Tribunal
thebarristergroup.co.uk ↗
The file →
- HMRC v Gunnarsson involved an LIP and fabricated tax cases.
- The LIP relied on hallucinated authorities generated by AI.
- The Upper Tribunal declined sanctions and expressed sympathy.
- The court was the Upper Tribunal in the UK.
- The page says the ruling warned that repeated hallucinations could force courts to verify every citation.
Warned
Descrybe.ai
2025-07-23
David P. Stich filed an opposition containing three nonexistent cases, and Judge Janet C. Hall warned an eye-catching sanction may be needed but imposed no immediate punishment.
Cojom v. Roblen LLC · David P. Stich · U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · CT
“"It's my problem ... if we don't stop you by some eye-catching sanction," Judge Hall told Stich.”
law360.com ↗
The file →
- Cojom v. Roblen LLC; attorney David P. Stich was called to account
- His opposition brief contained three cases that do not exist
- Judge Hall declined immediate punishment and issued a warning
- U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, New Haven
- July 23, 2025; Stich said he had "trusted a tool"
Filing dismissed
$86K
ChatGPT
2025-07-17
Lawyer James Martin Paul filed briefs with hallucinated AI citations in ByoPlanet cases; the court dismissed the federal matters, awarded fees, and referred him to the Florida Bar.
ByoPlanet International, LLC v. Johansson · James Martin Paul · Southern District of Florida · FL
“When he argued the fine was too high, the court shot back that caving to his arguments “would only benefit serial hallucinators.””
relativity.com ↗
The file →
- ByoPlanet Int’l, LLC v. Johansson and related matters; attorney James Martin Paul
- Paul used hallucinated citations across eight matters and even filed fabricated quotations after being put on notice
- Judge Leibowitz dismissed the four federal matters without prejudice and without leave to amend, awarded fees and costs, and referred Paul to the Florida Bar
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Florida
- July 17, 2025; Paul told the court he and his paralegal used ChatGPT
Warned
2025-07-07
Wright Brothers Aero, Inc. admitted an erroneous citation was introduced via AI software, and GAO dismissed the protest as untimely while warning of sanctions.
Wright Brothers Aero, Inc. · Government Accountability Office
centrelawgroup.com ↗
The file →
- Wright Brothers Aero, Inc. was dismissed after an AI-introduced citation error.
- The protester admitted the erroneous citation came from AI software.
- GAO dismissed the protest as untimely and warned that continued misuse may lead to sanctions.
- Government Accountability Office; federal bid protest forum.
- July 7, 2025; the warning appeared in a footnote.
Filing dismissed
2025-07-02
A pro se defendant filed pleadings loaded with 42 nonexistent citations, and the court dismissed the motion to strike after finding the citations were AI-hallucinated.
Powhatan County School Board v. Skinger · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · VA
““The fact that her citations to nonexistent legal authority are so pervasive, in volume and in location throughout her filings, can lead to only one plausible conclusion: that an AI program hallucinated them in an effort to meet whatever [the defendant’s] desired outcome was based on the prompt that she put into the AI program,””
thomsonreuters.com ↗
The file →
- Powhatan County School Board v. Skinger involved a pro se defendant's filings
- The filings contained 42 citations to nonexistent legal authorities
- The court dismissed the motion to strike the original opinion from the record
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
- The court said an AI program hallucinated the citations; no AI tool was named
Reprimanded
2025-07-02
A lawyer filed a family-law brief with scholarship and case citations the court said were generated by artificial intelligence and freely invented, and the judge publicly rebuked the filing.
Amtsgericht Köln · Local Court Cologne
“make finding justice more difficult, mislead the unknowing reader, and severely damage the reputation of the rule of law and especially the legal profession.”
noxtua.com ↗
The file →
- Amtsgericht Köln involved a lawyer whose family-law brief contained invented citations.
- The court found the books and legal decisions cited did not exist.
- The judge issued a public rebuke over the AI-generated, freely invented citations.
- Court: Local Court Cologne; jurisdiction/state not given on the page.
- Date: 2025-07-02; the page says the citations were apparently generated by artificial intelligence.
Reprimanded
2025-07-02
A lawyer filed a family-court brief that the Cologne District Court found was apparently generated by AI and freely fabricated.
312 F 130/25 · Cologne District Court
“Die weiteren von dem Antragsgegnervertreter im Schriftsatz vom 30.06.2025 genannten Voraussetzungen stammen nicht aus der zitieren Entscheidung und sind offenbar mittels künstlicher Intelligenz generiert und frei erfunden”
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
- 312 F 130/25 involved the respondent’s representative.
- The brief was found to be AI-generated and freely fabricated.
- The court called it Berufsrechtsverstoß, a professional misconduct violation.
- Cologne District Court in Cologne, Germany.
- The incident date given on the page is July 2, 2025.
Fined
2025-07-01
A Springfield attorney was fined for filing an appellate brief that cited eight non-existent cases.
Springfield attorney parental-rights case · Springfield attorney · IL
heplerbroom.com ↗
The file →
- A Springfield attorney was sanctioned in a parental-rights case.
- The appellate filing cited eight non-existent cases.
- The court fined the attorney.
- Illinois state appellate court; the article gives no judge name.
- July 2025; the article does not name the AI tool used.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-07-01
Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo sanctioned an attorney whose brief cited only one actual case after using AI-fabricated citations.
Marina Garcia Marmolejo · US District Court for the Southern District of Texas · TX
“Given that the Laredo Division is one of the busiest court dockets in the nation, there are scant resources to spare ferreting out erroneous AI citations in the first place, let alone surveying the burgeoning caselaw on this subject,”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo sanctioned an attorney in the Southern District of Texas.
- The brief cited only one actual case, with the rest being erroneous AI citations.
- The article gives no monetary amount, so the sanction type is not specified beyond sanctions.
- US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Texas.
- July 2025; the court noted the Laredo Division's heavy docket and limited resources.
Reprimanded
2025-07-01
A legal brief included claims not from the cited case and evidently invented by AI; the court issued a clear reprimand.
Cologne court July ruling on AI-generated claims · court in Cologne
“Counsel must refrain from making such remarks in the future, as they impede the judicial process, mislead non-specialist readers, and severely harm the reputation of the constitutional state and especially the legal profession.”
posteo.de ↗
The file →
- Cologne court matter involving an attorney.
- The brief included claims that did not come from the cited case and were generated by AI.
- The court issued a clear reprimand.
- Court in Cologne, Germany.
- July of the prior year; court said the conduct violated the Federal Lawyers’ Act.
Referred to the bar
2025-07-01
Turner was accused of citing an AI-generated imaginary case in filings seeking reinstatement of his law license, and the board asked the court to strike those filings.
Royce David Turner · Royce David Turner · Iowa Supreme Court · IA
axios.com ↗
The file →
- Royce David Turner was targeted in a 2025 disciplinary dispute over reinstatement filings.
- The board said one filing contained at least one AI-generated citation to a case that does not exist or did not support the point.
- The Iowa Supreme Court was asked to strike multiple recent filings.
- This was an Iowa state-court disciplinary matter involving the Iowa Supreme Court.
- The page says the imaginary case was cited in three separate filings.
Fined
$6K
Copilot
2025-07-01
Post-trial filings contained about 30 defective citations generated by Copilot, Gemini, and Grok, and Judge Nina Y. Wang imposed sanctions.
Coomer v. Lindell · Christopher I. Kachouroff; Jennifer T. DeMaster; MyPillow attorneys · U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado · CO
“the “least severe sanction adequate to deter and punish defense counsel in this instance.””
getvoibe.com ↗
The file →
- Coomer v. Lindell sanctioned Christopher I. Kachouroff and Jennifer T. DeMaster.
- Their post-trial filings contained about 30 defective citations from Copilot, Gemini, and Grok.
- Judge Nina Y. Wang imposed $3,000 each, totaling $6,000.
- U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
- July 2025; in April 2026 Wang issued an order to show cause proposing additional sanctions.
Referred to the bar
$2K
2025-06-30
The Georgia Court of Appeals struck a divorce order that cited bogus cases and sanctioned attorney Diana Lynch.
Shahid v. Esaam · Diana Lynch · Georgia Court of Appeals · GA
“We are troubled by the citation of bogus cases in the trial court’s order.”
Cases that don't exist
- Epps v. Epps (248 Ga. 637,285 S.E.2d 180, 1981)
- Hodge v. Hodge (269 Ga. 604,501 S.E.2d 169, 1998)
capclaw.com ↗
The file →
- Shahid v. Esaam; attorney Diana Lynch was sanctioned.
- The trial court order and later filings contained bogus case citations.
- The Court of Appeals struck the order, remanded the case, and sanctioned Lynch.
- Georgia Court of Appeals, reviewing a DeKalb County Superior Court divorce matter.
- June 30, 2025; the court said it had no proof AI was used but speculated about a consumer AI model.
Warned
Legal Genius
2025-06-30
The court found several authorities in the applicant’s heads of argument were fictitious and said they had been generated by an AI tool called Legal Genius.
Northbound Processing (Pty) Ltd v South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator and Others (2025/072038) [2025] ZAGPJHC 661 · Gauteng Division of the High Court · South Africa
“such conduct is unacceptable”
golegal.co.za ↗
The file →
- Northbound Processing (Pty) Ltd v South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator and Others
- Several authorities in the applicant’s heads of argument were found to be fictitious and AI-generated.
- The court issued an early judicial warning, but the page does not report a monetary penalty or referral.
- South Africa; decided by Smit AJ.
- 30 June 2025; counsel blamed time pressure and inadequate verification, not bad faith.
Fined
$100
2025-06-24
A lawyer’s written submissions cited non-existent cases, and the court ordered the submissions re-filed and imposed $100 in costs.
Hussein v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) · Federal Court
“The Court confirms that the inclusion of a Declaration, in and of itself, will not attract an adverse inference by the Court.”
clia.ca ↗
The file →
- Hussein v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) involved written submissions citing cases that did not exist.
- The court said the real issue was failure to disclose generative AI use.
- The lawyer had to re-file the submissions and pay $100 in costs.
- Federal Court, Canada.
- 2025 FC 1138; the court encouraged parties to alert it when they see fake cases.
Warned
2025-06-20
A litigant-in-person and a trade mark attorney relied on AI-generated inaccuracies, and the tribunal issued warnings to both.
BL O/0559/25 · UKIPO trade mark appeal tribunal
counselmagazine.co.uk ↗
The file →
- BL O/0559/25 is a UKIPO trade mark appeal.
- Both a litigant-in-person and a trade mark attorney relied on AI-generated inaccuracies.
- The tribunal warned both participants.
- The article says the attorney’s breach was particularly severe.
- The incident was dated 20 June 2025.
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
2025-06-06
The claimant's solicitor relied on 45 client-provided case citations, 18 fictitious, and the court referred him to the SRA.
Hamad Al Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) · Abid Hussain; Primus Solicitors · Divisional Court
“a matter of the utmost seriousness”
dacbeachcroft.com ↗
The file →
- Hamad Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC and QNB Capital LLC; Abid Hussain of Primus Solicitors
- Witness statements contained eighteen non-existent case authorities and misquoted genuine ones
- The court did not initiate contempt proceedings and said referral to the regulator was more appropriate
- Divisional Court, UK; the article says the decision was published on 6 June 2025
- Dias J called it "a matter of the utmost seriousness" and said counsel failed to check the information provided by the client
Referred to the bar
2025-06-06
A barrister filed judicial review grounds with five fake cases, and the High Court referred the matter to the Bar Standards Board and SRA while granting wasted costs.
R (on the application of Ayinde) v Haringey LBC · Mr Ayinde's barrister · High Court of Justice of England and Wales
“It is wholly improper to put fake cases in a pleading.”
dacbeachcroft.com ↗
The file →
- Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey involved Mr Ayinde's barrister.
- The judicial review grounds cited five cases that did not exist.
- The court granted wasted costs and referred the barrister to the Bar Standards Board.
- High Court of Justice of England and Wales, on 6 June 2025.
- The judge said fake cases in a pleading were wholly improper.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-06-06
A barrister filed judicial review grounds with five nonexistent cases and the court said contempt proceedings threshold was met but declined to start them.
R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey · Divisional Court
“It was identified that there are “serious implications on the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if AI is misused””
barcouncil.org.uk ↗
The file →
- R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey involved a barrister in judicial review proceedings.
- The grounds included misinterpretations of legislation and five cases that did not exist.
- The Divisional Court met the contempt threshold but did not initiate contempt proceedings.
- Court: Divisional Court, England and Wales; the article gives [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin).
- Date: 2025-06-06; the court warned about serious implications if AI is misused.
Reprimanded
2025-06-06
A trainee barrister and a solicitor filed submissions containing fictitious and inaccurate case law, and the High Court reprimanded them.
Frederick Ayinde v The London Borough of Haringey · High Court
““freely available generative artificial intelligence tools… are not capable of conducting reliable legal research””
salford.ac.uk ↗
The file →
- Frederick Ayinde v The London Borough of Haringey involved a pupil barrister and a solicitor.
- Their submissions contained fictitious and inaccurate case law.
- The High Court reprimanded them; no amount is stated.
- High Court, England and Wales.
- 6 June 2025; the court said freely available generative AI tools are not capable of reliable legal research.
Referred to the bar
2025-06-01
Counsel cited five non-existent cases and was referred to the regulator.
R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey · counsel in R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey · Divisional Court
“the court’s options run from a public reprimand through costs orders and contempt proceedings, and, in her own words, the police, by way of prosecution for perverting the course of justice.”
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
- R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey; counsel referred
- Counsel cited five cases that did not exist
- The lawyer was referred to the regulator
- Divisional Court, England and Wales
- June 2025; heard by Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson under the Hamid jurisdiction
Caught, not sanctioned
Claude
2025-05-23
Latham filed an expert declaration with a Claude-formatted citation that fabricated the article title and authors.
Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC · Latham and Watkins · N.D. Cal. · CA
“undermines the overall credibility”
gc.ai ↗
The file →
- Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC involved Latham and Watkins.
- Claude was used to format a reference, but it fabricated the title and authors.
- Judge Susan van Keulen struck the affected paragraph; no one was sanctioned.
- N.D. Cal., California.
- May 2025; the error was a single citation in an expert declaration.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-05-21
A Toronto lawyer filed AI-generated fake case citations and avoided contempt charges after the judge accepted public shaming and remedial steps.
Toronto Lawyer Avoids Contempt Charges for AI-Generated Fake Case Citations
“The judge said public shaming, as well as the fact that the lawyer took full responsibility for the errors and committed to remedial measures, was enough.”
law.com ↗
The file →
- A Toronto lawyer faced contempt charges over AI-generated fake case citations.
- The filing included hallucinated citations, but the court did not impose contempt.
- Sanction type was none; the lawyer narrowly avoided sanctions.
- Toronto, Canada; the court and judge are not named on the page.
- May 21, 2025; the judge relied on public shaming and remedial measures.
Fined
$2K
2025-05-20
Lord and Bello filed a response with a hallucinated case citation; Judge Matthewman ordered an AI ethics CLE, reimbursed fees and costs, and fined them.
Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enters., LLC · Timothy Lord; Joel Bello · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · FL
““In the Court's view, there is nothing inherently wrong with an attorney properly and competently utilizing AI or any of its subsets to practice law or litigate cases,””
relativity.com ↗
The file →
- Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enters., LLC involved Timothy Lord and Joel Bello.
- They filed a response containing a hallucinated case citation and later withdrew it.
- Judge Matthewman imposed fees and costs, ordered an AI CLE, and fined Lord $1,000 and Bello $500.
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Florida.
- Order dated 2025-05-20; the article says neither lawyer purposely attempted to mislead the court.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
2025-05-20
Senior lawyer Jisuh Lee showed cause over fake precedent cases in a factum, but she apologized and purged her contempt before the hearing continued.
Ko v Li · Jisuh Lee · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
“to bring home to all lawyers the need to check and not to trust factums [sic] generated by AI or by others”
claytonrice.com ↗
The file →
- Ko v Li involved senior lawyer Jisuh Lee.
- Her factum contained fake precedent court cases prepared using ChatGPT.
- She purged her contempt, so no sanction was imposed.
- Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
- 2025-05-20; Justice F.L. Myers said lawyers must check factums generated by AI.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-05-14
A plaintiff used generative AI to draft a filing that included fabricated cases and a placeholder name.
Saxena v. Martinez-Hernandez · D. Nev. · NV
guides.law.byu.edu ↗
The file →
- Saxena v. Martinez-Hernandez; plaintiff not named on the page
- Generative AI drafted a filing with fabricated cases
- The page cites an order denying reconsideration, not sanctions
- District of Nevada
- Order dated 2025-05-14
Filing dismissed
2025-05-13
A struck-off former solicitor’s appeal cited 25 nonexistent cases, and the High Court struck out the grounds on its own motion.
Bandla v Solicitors Regulation Authority · High Court
“needs to take decisive action to protect the integrity of its processes against any citation of fake authority.”
searchthe.law ↗
The file →
- Bandla v Solicitors Regulation Authority was the case caption named on the page.
- The appeal grounds cited 25 cases that did not exist.
- Fordham J struck out the grounds of the court’s own motion.
- The court was the High Court in England and Wales.
- Decided 13 May 2025; the article says the court acted to protect the integrity of its processes.
Warned
2025-05-07
Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC filed a protest with citations to purported GAO decisions that could not be found, and GAO dismissed it with an AI-related warning.
Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC · Government Accountability Office
“wastes the time of all parties and GAO”
centrelawgroup.com ↗
The file →
- Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC was dismissed after filing questionable citations.
- The protest included citations to purported GAO decisions that could not be found.
- GAO dismissed the protest and issued its first apparent AI-related warning about sanctions.
- Government Accountability Office; federal bid protest decision.
- May 7, 2025; GAO linked the problem to unverified AI drafting.
Fined
$31K
Gemini
2025-05-01
A brief built with CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini used fabricated citations, and the Special Master struck it and ordered costs.
Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates matter · Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates · Special Master
“deeply troubling”
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
- Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates matter
- The firms submitted a brief with fabricated citations generated using AI tools
- The Special Master struck the brief and ordered $31,100 in costs
- Special Master; location not stated on the page
- May 2025; the page names CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-05-01
Marc Gunnarsson filed tribunal submissions using an AI chatbot that invented case law, but the judge was lenient and no sanction is reported.
Marc Gunnarsson · Marc Gunnarsson · tax tribunal
jmc-legal.com ↗
The file →
- Marc Gunnarsson in a tax tribunal dispute
- He used an AI chatbot to prepare submissions with invented case law
- The judge was lenient and no sanction is reported
- Tax tribunal, England
- May 2025; the cited fake cases were Patel v HMRC, Ali v HMRC, and Kamran v HMRC
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-04-29
Both parties in an appeal filed briefs with fabricated citations to non-existent OLG decisions, but the page does not say what sanction, if any, followed.
Oberlandesgericht Celle · Higher Regional Court of Celle
noxtua.com ↗
The file →
- Oberlandesgericht Celle was an appeal in which both sides used fabricated case citations.
- The briefs cited non-existent OLG decisions.
- The page does not report any sanction imposed in this incident.
- Court: Higher Regional Court of Celle; jurisdiction/state not given on the page.
- Date: 2025-04-29; the page highlights professional negligence and AI-generated legal research without verification.
Fined
Google Scholar
2025-04-22
Massar Briggs Law filed court documents with hallucinated footnotes; the court declined referral but ordered indemnity costs.
Murray on behalf of the Wamba Wemba Native Title Claim Group v State of Victoria · Massar Briggs Law · Federal Court of Australia · VIC
“Justice Murphy said it was likely that the false document citations came from using generative AI, which had the capacity to "fabricate" or "hallucinate" information.”
qlsproctor.com.au ↗
The file →
- Murray on behalf of the Wamba Wemba Native Title Claim Group v State of Victoria; Massar Briggs Law
- Court documents contained multiple hallucinated footnotes and incorrect citations
- Court ordered Massar Briggs Law to pay indemnity costs
- Federal Court of Australia, Victoria
- 2025; supervisor failed to review remote work and the court found the citations were hallucinated
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-04-18
Sullivan & Cromwell filed a motion with incorrect case names, numbers, and apparently fabricated quotes, then apologized and said it would submit a corrected filing.
Prince Global Holdings bankruptcy matter · Sullivan & Cromwell · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · NY
“"Hallucinations" are instances in which artificial intelligence tools fabricate case citations, misquote authorities, or generate non-existent legal sources,”
yahoo.com ↗
The file →
- Prince Global Holdings bankruptcy matter; Sullivan & Cromwell was the firm involved.
- A filing contained inaccurate citations and other errors, including AI hallucinations.
- No sanction is reported; the firm apologized and said it would correct the filing.
- The matter was in Manhattan before Chief Judge Martin Glenn.
- On 2025-04-18, partner Andrew Dietderich wrote the judge; the errors were caught by Boies Schiller Flexner.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-04-01
Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst sanctioned a plaintiff after finding five cited cases did not exist.
Lee Dunst · US District Court for the Eastern District of New York · NY
“The AI-generated fake cases left the court with “no choice but to survey the case law regarding attorney misconduct relating to the use of AI” rather than “resolving a routine matter of civil procedure,””
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst in the Eastern District of New York imposed sanctions.
- A plaintiff's motion cited five cases that the court found did not exist.
- The article gives no dollar amount, only that sanctions were issued.
- US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, New York.
- April 2025; the order said the court had to address AI misconduct instead of a routine civil procedure matter.
Filing dismissed
ChatGPT
2025-04-01
An applicant repeatedly used the term "subornation of perjury," which Judge David Nolan said sounded like AI and denied the judicial review appeal.
Judicial review appeal in Ireland · High Court
“This sounds like something that derived from an artificial intelligence source,”
businessplus.ie ↗
The file →
- An unnamed applicant was before Judge David Nolan.
- The applicant repeatedly used a phrase the judge thought came from AI.
- Judge Nolan denied the judicial review appeal.
- This happened in the High Court in Ireland.
- About four months after Dec. 2024; Nolan said it had the hallmarks of ChatGPT or a similar tool.
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
2025-03-31
The court found seven of nine cited authorities were non-existent, apparently AI-generated, refused leave to appeal, and referred the matter to the Legal Practice Council.
Mavundla v MEC: Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs KwaZulu-Natal and Others [2025] ZAKZPHC 2 · Pietermaritzburg High Court · South Africa
“irresponsible and downright unprofessional”
iol.co.za ↗
The file →
- Mavundla v MEC: Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs KwaZulu-Natal and Others
- Seven of nine authorities in the applicant’s submissions were found to be entirely non-existent, apparently generated by AI.
- The court refused leave to appeal and referred the matter to the Legal Practice Council.
- Pietermaritzburg High Court, South Africa.
- Judge Bezuidenhout; the article says this was the clearest African example of AI hallucinations contaminating filings.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-03-20
City Attorneys took full responsibility for improper AI use that led to hallucinated case citations after receiving an order to show cause.
Case 2:25-cv-01260-CJB-EJD · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · LA
digitalcommons.law.scu.edu ↗
The file →
- Case 2:25-cv-01260-CJB-EJD involved City Attorneys taking responsibility for AI misuse.
- The filing says the improper use of A.I. led to hallucinated case citations.
- No sanction amount or formal sanction is stated in the excerpt; the order to show cause is mentioned.
- The court is the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.
- Filed 2025-03-20; the excerpt gives no AI tool name or judge quotation.
Fined
$2K
ChatGPT
2025-02-27
Counsel admitted using ChatGPT to draft filings with fabricated and misrepresented citations; the court imposed a $2,500 sanction and mandatory AI-ethics CLE.
Bunce v. Visual Tech. Innovations, Inc. · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
- Bunce v. Visual Technology Innovations (1); counsel sanctioned.
- The page says counsel admitted using ChatGPT to draft filings with fake citations.
- The court imposed a $2,500 monetary sanction and required CLE.
- E.D. Pennsylvania, federal court in Pennsylvania.
- 2025-02-27; the matter involved fabricated, misrepresented, and outdated citations.
Fined
$10K
2025-02-24
Aleshire & Wynder filed a writ-of-assistance application with fake and improper citations, and Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan ordered it to explain why a $10,000 fine should not be imposed.
A&T Ceramic Tile eminent domain lawsuit · Aleshire & Wynder, LLP · Fresno County Superior Court · CA
“Based on these observations, the court determines that legal contentions made by counsel for plaintiff were not warranted by existing law as represented through counsel’s signature and filing of the application,” Kapetan wrote in her Feb. 24 ruling.”
fresnoland.org ↗
The file →
- A&T Ceramic Tile eminent domain lawsuit; Aleshire & Wynder, LLP.
- The firm’s Dec. 31 filing contained fake and improper citations, including non-existent case law and a non-existent statute.
- Judge ordered the firm to show cause why a $10,000 fine should not be imposed.
- Fresno County Superior Court in Fresno, California.
- Feb. 24 ruling by Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan; the article says the filing listed three attorneys but was signed by Carrie Raven.
Fined
$5K
in-house AI database
2025-02-01
Attorneys at Morgan and Morgan filed motions citing nine cases, eight fake, and Judge Kelly Rankin revoked the drafting attorney’s pro hac vice admission and fined the lawyers.
Wadsworth v. Walmart · Morgan and Morgan; drafting attorney; supervising partner; local counsel · U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming · WY
“In February 2025, Judge Kelly Rankin revoked the drafting attorney’s pro hac vice admission and fined him $3,000, with $1,000 each for the supervising partner and local counsel who e-signed the filing without reading it.”
gc.ai ↗
The file →
- Wadsworth v. Walmart; Morgan and Morgan lawyers
- They filed motions citing nine cases, eight of which were fake, using the firm’s in-house AI database
- Monetary fine: $5,000 total
- U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming
- February 2025; Judge Kelly Rankin also revoked the drafting attorney’s pro hac vice admission
Fined
2025-02-01
Three Morgan & Morgan lawyers were sanctioned after filing motions that cited eight non-existent cases generated by their in-house AI platform.
Morgan & Morgan attorneys · Morgan & Morgan attorneys · federal court
corporatecounselnow.com ↗
The file →
- Morgan & Morgan attorneys were sanctioned in a federal case.
- They filed motions with eight non-existent cases generated by their in-house AI platform.
- The court sanctioned them after finding no reasonable inquiry into the law.
- The article gives no judge name or exact court location.
- It says the misconduct occurred in February 2025 and involved Rule 11.
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
2025-01-31
A lawyer filed submissions with false citations and quotes generated by ChatGPT, and Judge Skaros referred the conduct to the regulatory body.
Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
“The conduct of the ALR, in filing an application and submissions which contained citations to Federal Court of Australia cases which do not exist and alleged quotes from the Tribunal’s decision which do not exist, falls short of the standard of competence and diligence that the applicant in the substantive proceedings was entitled to expect from his legal representative.”
lst.org.au ↗
The file →
- Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) involved a lawyer referred to the regulatory body.
- The filings contained false citations and quotes generated using ChatGPT.
- Judge Skaros referred the lawyer's conduct for consideration.
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).
- 2025-01-31; the conduct also involved correspondence with the Court without the consent of the other parties.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-01-16
Two elderly litigants in person faced contempt concerns over fabricated citations, but the court declined to commit them, narrowly and reluctantly.
Olsen v Finansiel Stabilitet A/S · High Court of England and Wales
“narrowly and somewhat reluctantly”
searchthe.law ↗
The file →
- Olsen v Finansiel Stabilitet A/S is the named case.
- The matter involved two elderly litigants in person and fabricated citations.
- The court did not commit them for contempt.
- The court was the High Court.
- Decided 16 January 2025; the article says the restraint was narrow and reluctant.
Warned
ChatGPT
2025-01-10
Counsel submitted an expert declaration drafted with LLM help that cited two nonexistent articles and misattributed a third; the court excluded the testimony.
Kohls v. Ellison · Jeff Hancock · United States District Court for the District of Minnesota · MN
“Rule 11 imposes a “personal, nondelegable responsibility” to ensure the accuracy of everything filed.”
counselpro.ai ↗
The file →
- Kohls v. Ellison; Minnesota Attorney General Ellison’s counsel
- An expert declaration used LLM help and contained two nonexistent articles and one misattribution
- The court excluded the expert testimony; no monetary sanction stated
- U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Minnesota
- Jan. 10, 2025; the court stressed Rule 11’s personal, nondelegable responsibility
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-01-06
Thomas W. King’s brief was flagged for apparent AI-hallucinated citations, and the judge ordered it corrected and refiled without imposing sanctions at the hearing.
South Side Area School District et. al v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission · Thomas Breth and Thomas W. King III / Thomas More Society · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · PA
““When I read the brief that was signed by three attorneys from your firm, I had a problem,” he told King and fellow lawyer Thomas E. Breth. “I read what I believe to be artificial intelligence hallucinations.””
Cases that don't exist
- Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Labor and Industry
wesanews.org ↗
The file →
- South Side Area School District et. al v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission; Thomas W. King and his firm were scrutinized.
- The 50-page October filing was said to contain quotes that did not exist or were miscontextualized.
- No sanction was imposed in the hearing; King was told to correct and refile the brief.
- Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania.
- Dec. 12, 2025 article; Judge Matthew Wolf said he believed the brief contained AI hallucinations.
Filing dismissed
ChatGPT
2025-01-01
The court dismissed a damages claim after the plaintiff's ChatGPT-assisted complaint relied on inaccurate or non-existent legal bases.
AI-written lawsuit dismissed by the court · Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu
“the statement of claim having been drafted entirely with the assistance of ChatGPT.”
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
- AI-written lawsuit dismissed by the court; the plaintiff
- The complaint was drafted entirely with ChatGPT and used inaccurate or non-existent legal bases
- The court dismissed the claim as unfounded
- Wrocław, Poland
- 2025; the court said responsibility for the content rested with the plaintiff
Reprimanded
2025-01-01
A Victorian solicitor was sanctioned for using AI in a court case and presenting false citations, with restrictions placed on his practising certificate.
In re Vincent J. Sullivan · a solicitor in Victoria · Federal Court of Australia
attwoodmarshall.com.au ↗
The file →
- In re Vincent J. Sullivan; a solicitor in Victoria was sanctioned.
- He used AI in a court case and presented false citations.
- Restrictions were placed on his practising certificate, including revoking principal status.
- Federal Court of Australia.
- 2025; the article calls it an Australian-first and says the court required AI disclosure.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
2025-01-01
The appellant filed written submissions with six inaccurate cited decisions and one apparently fictitious case; the court ignored the authorities and denied costs.
NCR v KKB, 2025 ABKB 417 · Alberta Court of King’s Bench
“Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court. Unchecked, it can lead to the miscarriage of justice.”
hayherlee.com ↗
The file →
- NCR v KKB, 2025 ABKB 417 involved a self-represented mother.
- Her written submissions cited six inaccurate decisions and one apparently fictitious case.
- The court denied costs and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
- The decision was from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench.
- The court inferred possible AI-generated content and quoted Zhang v Chen about fake cases.
Referred to the bar
$47K
2025-01-01
A solicitor’s office used AI to prepare a Summary of Argument and List of Authorities, and the Full Court referred the legal representatives to professional bodies.
Mertz & Mertz (No 3) · Ms G; Mr AX KC; Mr AY · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
bnlaw.com.au ↗
The file →
- Mertz & Mertz (No 3) involved the appellant’s legal representatives.
- A paralegal used AI to draft the original documents without the solicitor’s knowledge.
- The Full Court referred the conduct to the relevant professional bodies.
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
- The court said the solicitor did not identify which AI program had been used.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-01-01
Michael Fourte submitted court filings with AI-fabricated quotations and citations and was sanctioned.
Michael Fourte · Michael Fourte
cmr.berkeley.edu ↗
The file →
- Michael Fourte was sanctioned in 2025.
- He filed court papers filled with AI-fabricated quotations and citations.
- The page does not state the sanction type or amount.
- The court and location are not named on the page.
- He later filed another motion, also written with a large language model, repeating the same mistakes.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-01-01
A self-represented litigant filed materials with AI-hallucinated case law, and the court said inaccurate AI-based filings can draw costs orders.
Wu v. Murray · British Columbia Court of Appeal
“whether the inaccurate representations are made by a lawyer or a self-represented party”
canadianlawyermag.com ↗
The file →
- Wu v. Murray involved a self-represented litigant, not a named lawyer or firm.
- The filing included AI-hallucinated case law.
- The court said inaccurate AI-based filings can be penalized with remedies including costs orders.
- British Columbia Court of Appeal, British Columbia.
- 2025; the page cites the case as an example of the court's filing directive, but gives no sanction order date or AI tool.
Referred to the bar
2025-01-01
A practice group co-leader filed a brief with fabricated citations, and the court disqualified the attorneys and referred the matter to bar regulators.
Johnson v. Dunn · N.D. Ala. · AL
internalaudit360.com ↗
The file →
- Johnson v. Dunn; the page says a major law firm was involved.
- A practice group co-leader submitted a brief with fabricated citations despite explicit AI guidance.
- The court disqualified the attorneys and referred the matter to state bar regulators.
- N.D. Ala., federal, Alabama.
- 2025; the page says monetary sanctions were insufficient and the opinion was published in the Federal Supplement.
Reprimanded
2025-01-01
A solicitor filed hallucinated AI-generated family law authorities and was disciplined by the Victorian Legal Services Board.
Handa & Mallick · a solicitor in Handa & Mallick · Victorian Legal Services Board
open.cx ↗
The file →
- Handa & Mallick involved a disciplined solicitor
- The solicitor submitted hallucinated authorities generated by AI
- The Board barred him from trust money and unsupervised practice for two years
- Victorian Legal Services Board
- 2025; the page identifies the matter as an Australian family law case
Warned
2025-01-01
A lawyer filed a Social Security appeal brief citing 12 fabricated, misleading, or unsupported cases and was criticized for AI-like hallucinations.
Social Security appeal brief · court not specified
“the filing as "replete with citation-related deficiencies, including those consistent with artificial intelligence generated hallucinations."”
open.cx ↗
The file →
- A lawyer filed the Social Security appeal brief
- The brief cited 12 fabricated, misleading, or unsupported cases
- The judge described it as replete with citation-related deficiencies
- Court and location not specified
- 2025; the page says the volume of fabricated citations had grown
Fined
$3K
2025-01-01
Lawyers at Morgan & Morgan were sanctioned, and the drafting attorney was fined $3,000 while his temporary bar admission was revoked.
Morgan & Morgan · Morgan & Morgan
developmentcorporate.com ↗
The file →
- Morgan & Morgan lawyers were sanctioned in 2025.
- The drafting attorney was fined $3,000 and had his temporary bar admission revoked.
- The sanction was a monetary fine plus revocation of temporary admission.
- Court and jurisdiction are not named on the page.
- 2025; the page identifies Morgan & Morgan as the largest personal injury firm in the U.S.
Warned
2025-01-01
An employee used a generative AI platform for Authority responses, including hallucinated cases and incorrectly cited authorities, and the Authority issued a reminder to check AI output.
QTR v BXD · Employment Relations Authority
simpsongrierson.com ↗
The file →
- QTR v BXD involved an employee in the Authority process
- The responses contained hallucinated legal cases and incorrect citations
- The Authority issued a reminder, not a monetary penalty
- Employment Relations Authority, New Zealand
- 2025; the AI use also involved confidential and personal workplace information
Filing dismissed
2025-01-01
A suspended lawyer filed tribunal materials with hallucinated cases and misleading citations; the Tribunal dismissed his motion.
Mazaheri v Law Society of Ontario · Law Society Tribunal
minkenemploymentlawyers.com ↗
The file →
- Mazaheri v Law Society of Ontario involved a lawyer whose licence had already been suspended.
- He relied heavily on generative AI and submitted filings with fabricated cases and misleading citations.
- The Tribunal dismissed his motion rather than accept the AI-generated materials.
- The court was the Law Society Tribunal in Ontario, Canada.
- The article says the decision was in 2025 and a 15-page chart identified the false authorities.
Fined
2025-01-01
A law firm filed documents containing fabricated citations generated by AI, and the court ordered it to pay the other party's indemnity costs.
Murray v State of Victoria · Federal Court of Australia
“The Judge cited the “growing problem” of false citations in documents prepared using generative AI tools.”
kennedypartnerslawyers.com.au ↗
The file →
- Murray v State of Victoria involved a law firm, not an individual lawyer.
- The firm filed documents containing fabricated citations generated by AI.
- The court ordered indemnity costs against the firm.
- Federal Court of Australia.
- 2025; the judge described a growing problem with false citations in generative AI documents.
Warned
2025-01-01
A lawyer used AI to prepare written documents citing cases that did not exist, and the Full Court said this breached the duty not to mislead the court.
Helmond & Mariya (No 2) · Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
“Artificial intelligence is a tool that carries with it risks as well as opportunities. Its use must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained”
kennedypartnerslawyers.com.au ↗
The file →
- Helmond & Mariya (No 2) involved a lawyer who used AI to prepare written documents.
- The documents cited cases that did not exist.
- The Full Court emphasized the duty not to mislead the court and high ethical obligations on lawyers.
- Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
- 2025; the page quotes the President of the King's Bench Division on AI oversight.
Referred to the bar
2025-01-01
A paralegal used AI to prepare a summary of argument and list of authorities with non-existent cases, and the lawyers who failed to check it were referred to the regulator.
Mertz & Mertz (No 3) · Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
kennedypartnerslawyers.com.au ↗
The file →
- Mertz & Mertz (No 3) involved a paralegal using AI to prepare court materials.
- The summary of argument and list of authorities included authorities that did not exist.
- The paralegal was fired, and the lawyers who did not verify the work were referred to the local regulator.
- Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
- 2025; the article says the lawyers also had to pay the other party's costs.
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
2025-01-01
A barrister cited a false case generated by ChatGPT and the Upper Tribunal referred the barrister to the BSB after the citation was not checked.
MS (Bangladesh) (Professional Conduct: AI Generated Documents) · Upper Tribunal
5essex.co.uk ↗
The file →
- MS (Bangladesh) (Professional Conduct: AI Generated Documents) involved a barrister.
- The barrister cited a false case generated by ChatGPT and failed to check its authenticity.
- The Upper Tribunal referred the barrister to the BSB.
- Upper Tribunal, location not stated on the page.
- The article says the tribunal applied Ayinde guidance and the false citation came from ChatGPT.
Referred to the bar
2025-01-01
Lawyers submitted court documents citing fake legal authorities generated, or likely generated, by AI tools, and the matters were referred to the Divisional Court.
R (on the application of Ayinde) v The London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank · Divisional Court
“those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect”
hausfeld.com ↗
The file →
- R (on the application of Ayinde) v The London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank
- Lawyers filed court documents with fake legal authorities
- The matters were referred to the Divisional Court
- Divisional Court; the page quotes the President of the King's Bench Division
- 2025; the page says the citations were generated, or likely generated, by AI tools
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-01-01
A party's submissions included a non-existent case, showing hallucinated references can slip into court filings when AI outputs aren't verified.
Luck v Secretary, Services Australia · Federal Court of Australia Full Court
lexisnexis.com ↗
The file →
- Luck v Secretary, Services Australia involved a party's submissions.
- The page says a non-existent case was included in the submissions.
- No sanction is described on the page.
- Federal Court of Australia Full Court, Australia.
- 2025; cited as a stark reminder that hallucinated references can reach the record.
Warned
2025-01-01
A lawyer relied on three nonexistent cases and one misstated case, and the court ordered submissions on why she should not be held in contempt.
Ko v. Li · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
“Irrespective of issues concerning artificial intelligence, counsel who misrepresent the law, submit fake case precedents, or who utterly misrepresent the holdings of cases cited as precedents, violate their duties to the court.”
calgarydefence.com ↗
The file →
- Ko v. Li involved another lawyer.
- She cited three nonexistent cases and one wrong case in written and oral submissions.
- The court ordered contempt-response submissions, not a stated fine.
- Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario.
- 2025 ONSC 2985; the court warned that fake precedents violate duties to the court.
Caught, not sanctioned
2025-01-01
Appellants relied on a made-up ruling that the judge spotted and narrowly avoided contempt proceedings.
Danish case involving the appellants
lawsociety.org.zw ↗
The file →
- Danish case involving the appellants
- They relied on a made-up ruling that the judge spotted
- They narrowly avoided contempt proceedings, according to the article
- Denmark; court not named on the page
- 2025; the article says they narrowly avoided contempt proceedings
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
2024-12-01
A tribunal order was reportedly withdrawn after it cited a wrong High Court, a wrong party name, and a repealed provision.
Buckeye Trust v. PCIT · ITAT Bangalore · KA
advocateprakhar.com ↗
The file →
- Buckeye Trust v. PCIT was identified as the first documented Indian AI-hallucination incident.
- The ITAT Bangalore order was reportedly withdrawn after suspected AI hallucinations.
- The issue was wrong citations, including a wrong High Court and wrong party name.
- The outcome was withdrawal and re-hearing, not a monetary penalty.
- The page dates it to December 2024 and says the tribunal order was later identified retrospectively.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
2024-12-01
The Bengaluru bench recalled an order after it cited four non-existent judgments traced to unverified ChatGPT use.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bengaluru bench matter · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru bench
medianama.com ↗
The file →
- ITAT Bengaluru bench matter
- An order cited four non-existent judgments from unverified ChatGPT use
- The bench recalled the order; no formal sanction is stated
- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru
- December 2024; the citations were traced back to ChatGPT
Filing dismissed
2024-12-01
A married couple in Dublin filed error-strewn submissions after relying on AI-generated legal material, and Judge David Nolan threw out the submission.
Dublin repossession case · High Court
“The general public should be warned against the use of generative AI devices and programs in matters of law.”
businessplus.ie ↗
The file →
- A married couple in Dublin were the parties in the case.
- They used AI-linked material that misread legal terms and legislation in a repossession dispute.
- Judge Nolan threw out the submission entirely.
- The order was from the High Court in Ireland.
- Dec. 2024; the judge warned against using generative AI in matters of law.
Fined
$2K
ChatGPT
2024-11-04
Judge Fred W. Slaughter imposed $2,000 in sanctions on William Becker Jr. for filing a motion with alleged non-existent case citations and misrepresentations of existing law.
William Becker Jr. · William Becker Jr · US District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“Sanctions were warranted against Becker for “his failure to verify the validity of the AI-generated material, and submitting the AI-tainted Motion to the court,” the judge said.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
- William Becker Jr. was sanctioned in the Chris Kluwe-related case.
- He filed a motion with AI-hallucinated/non-existent citations and misrepresented existing case law.
- The court imposed $2,000 in sanctions.
- US District Court for the Central District of California; Judge Fred W. Slaughter.
- Nov. 4 order; the page says the motion was AI-tainted and Becker was told to show cause.
Fined
$2K
2024-11-01
Brandon Monk filed a wrongful-termination brief with fake cases and AI-generated quotes and was fined $2,000 plus ordered to take an AI legal course.
Monk Law Firm · Brandon Monk · U.S. District Court · TX
legal.thomsonreuters.com ↗
The file →
- Brandon Monk and Monk Law Firm were sanctioned.
- He submitted a filing with fake cases and AI-generated quotes in a Goodyear wrongful-termination suit.
- The court fined him $2,000 and ordered an AI legal course.
- A Texas federal judge imposed the sanction.
- November 2024; Judge Marcia Crone had ordered him to explain why he should not face sanctions.
Referred to the bar
LEAP
2024-08-27
Mr Dayal tendered a list and summary of non-existent authorities using an AI research tool in LEAP, and Judge A Humphreys referred the conduct.
Dayal · Mr Dayal · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
mpslaw.com.au ↗
The file →
- Dayal involved Mr Dayal.
- He tendered a list and summary of authorities that did not exist using an AI research tool in LEAP.
- Judge A Humphreys referred the conduct to the regulatory body for consideration.
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).
- 2024-08-27; Mr Dayal did not verify the accuracy of the information.
Outcome unclear
2024-07-17
The page lists this as a case where attorneys were sanctioned for citing AI-generated non-existent cases.
United States v. Cohen · S.D.N.Y. · NY
justicespeakersinstitute.com ↗
The file →
- United States v. Cohen is named in the page’s citation list.
- It is described as one of several incidents involving briefs with non-existent cases generated by AI.
- The page gives no sanction details beyond listing the case as an example.
- The court listed is S.D.N.Y., a federal court in New York.
- The page gives July 17, 2024, and does not specify the attorney or AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
2024-07-15
Bluefort’s brief contained mistaken and misleading citations drafted with AI, but Judge Mark Howard said the matter was resolved with no further action.
Windham couple v. contractor (name not given) · Nicole Bluefort · Rockingham County Superior Court · NH
“the court considers the matter resolved and no further action is necessary”
concordmonitor.com ↗
The file →
- Nicole Bluefort in the Windham couple’s lawsuit
- AI-drafted briefs contained mistaken, misleading and nonexistent citations
- No sanction; Bluefort paid just over $5,000 in opposing counsel’s extra time
- Rockingham County Superior Court, New Hampshire
- July 15 order; Judge Mark Howard accepted remediation and ended the matter
Fined
$2K
2024-05-03
Counsel submitted AI-hallucinated citations, and the court fined counsel $2,000.
Park v. Kim · E.D.N.Y. · NY
localaimaster.com ↗
The file →
- Park v. Kim was cited as a documented sanction.
- Counsel submitted AI-hallucinated citations.
- The court fined counsel $2,000.
- The court was in E.D.N.Y., New York.
- The page does not name the AI tool used.
Reprimanded
2024-03-30
An attorney filed a reply brief with more than 70% fictitious citations, and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals issued a public censure.
In re Willis · an attorney in Dyersburg, Tennessee · Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
faughnanonethics.com ↗
The file →
- In re Willis; an attorney in Dyersburg, Tennessee was censured.
- He filed a reply brief in an Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals matter with fictitious citations.
- The tribunal imposed a public censure.
- Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, federal tribunal.
- March 30; the board found more than 70% of the brief's citations were fictitious.
Fined
$2K
ChatGPT
2024-02-12
A brief citing fictitious cases created with AI led the Superior Court of Massachusetts to sanction the attorney $2,000.
Smith v. Falwell · Suffolk Superior Court · MA
“two disturbing developments that are adversely affecting the practice of law”
klemchuk.com ↗
The file →
- Smith v. Falwell involved lead counsel at the offending law firm.
- Three filings contained fictitious or non-existent caselaw produced using AI.
- The court sanctioned the attorney $2,000.
- Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts.
- Feb. 12, 2024; the article says ChatGPT and Google Bard were cited as examples of AI that can fabricate information.
Warned
2024-02-01
The court sanctioned an attorney for submitting pleadings containing AI-generated fake citations.
Smith v. Farwell · Massachusetts Superior Court · MA
massbbo.org ↗
The file →
- Massachusetts Superior Court attorney sanction incident
- Pleadings contained AI-fabricated legal citations
- Sanction type and amount not stated on the page
- Massachusetts Superior Court in Massachusetts
- February 2024; Hon. Brian Davis
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
2024-01-30
The Second Circuit referred attorney Jae S. Lee to its grievance panel after he cited a ChatGPT-generated non-existent case in a reply brief.
Park v. Kim · Jae S. Lee · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · NY
“well below the basic obligations of counsel”
getvoibe.com ↗
The file →
- Park v. Kim involved Jae S. Lee of JSL Law Offices.
- She cited a non-existent case in a reply brief and admitted ChatGPT use.
- The Second Circuit referred her to its Grievance Panel.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- January 30, 2024; the panel said her conduct was well below the basic obligations of counsel.
Filing dismissed
$10K
ChatGPT
2024-01-01
A litigant submitted an appellate brief with fictitious AI-generated case citations, and the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and imposed damages.
Kruse v. Karlen · Jonathan Karlen · Missouri Court of Appeals · MO
“The Court of Appeals noted that the “bogus citations” could not, “for any reason….be countenanced and represent a flagrant violation of the duty of candor” owed to the court.”
nysba.org ↗
The file →
- Kruse v. Karlen involved a self-represented appellant.
- Her AI program cited 24 cases, but only two were real and both were misunderstood.
- The court dismissed the appeal and ordered $10,000 in attorney’s fees.
- Missouri Court of Appeals, Missouri.
- The article says the AI made up case names and citations that appeared genuine.
Fined
$2K
Claude
2024-01-01
A plaintiff's brief used Claude-generated citations to two nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, and the court imposed a modest sanctions order.
Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. · Brandon Monk · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas · TX
counselpro.ai ↗
The file →
- Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.; plaintiff's attorney
- The brief contained two nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations generated by Claude.
- The court imposed a $2,000 penalty plus CLE and employer notice requirements.
- Eastern District of Texas; federal court in Texas.
- Late 2024; the attorney admitted using Claude without verifying the output.
Filing dismissed
2024-01-01
The Ninth Circuit dismissed an appeal in relevant part because the filing cited a nonexistent case.
Grant v. City of Long Beach · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
wabarnews.org ↗
The file →
- Grant v. City of Long Beach involved a brief with a citation to a nonexistent case.
- The court dismissed the appeal in relevant part.
- Dismissal; no monetary amount stated.
- Ninth Circuit (federal).
- The page gives no exact order date or AI tool used.
Reprimanded
2024-01-01
A lawyer filed a list of authorities that did not exist, and the court varied his practising certificate and imposed supervised practice.
Dayal · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
kennedypartnerslawyers.com.au ↗
The file →
- Dayal involved a lawyer who submitted a list of authorities to the court that did not exist.
- The court treated the filing as a serious accuracy failure in court documents.
- His practising certificate was varied, he could not act as a principal lawyer or handle trust money, and he had to do supervised practice for two years.
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
- 2024; the article says practitioners remain personally responsible for the accuracy of documents they file.
A lawyer filed a brief quoting two made-up cases, and the court ordered costs and required a review of all files for ChatGPT use.
Zhang v. Chen · British Columbia Supreme Court
“As this case has unfortunately made clear, generative AI is still no substitute for the professional expertise that the justice system requires of lawyers.”
calgarydefence.com ↗
The file →
- Zhang v. Chen involved the lawyer representing Mr. Chen.
- The brief quoted two made-up cases and used ChatGPT.
- The court ordered costs and a file-wide review, not a stated dollar fine.
- British Columbia Supreme Court, British Columbia.
- 2024 BCSC 285; Justice Masuhara said generative AI is no substitute for lawyers' expertise.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
2024-01-01
The page says the attorney cited non-existent case law in a reply brief, and she admitted it was generated using ChatGPT.
Park v Kim
theconversation.com ↗
The file →
- Park v Kim is named as a 2024 American case.
- The attorney cited non-existent case law in her reply brief.
- The page says the citations were generated using ChatGPT.
- The court is not identified on the page.
- 2024; the article uses it as a comparison to Mavundla.
Referred to the bar
ChatGPT
2024-01-01
The Second Circuit referred attorney Jae Lee to a grievance panel for citing nonexistent ChatGPT-hallucinated cases.
Jae Lee matter · Jae Lee · Second Circuit
jurvantis.ai ↗
The file →
- Jae Lee matter; attorney Jae Lee
- He cited nonexistent ChatGPT-hallucinated cases
- The court referred him to a grievance panel
- Second Circuit, federal appellate court
- January 2024; the page names ChatGPT as the source of the fabricated citations
Outcome unclear
2023-11-27
The page lists this as a case where attorneys were sanctioned for citing AI-generated non-existent cases.
Park v. Kim · E.D.N.Y. · NY
justicespeakersinstitute.com ↗
The file →
- Park v. Kim is named in the page’s citation list.
- It is described as one of several incidents involving briefs with non-existent cases generated by AI.
- The page gives no sanction details beyond listing the case as an example.
- The court listed is E.D.N.Y., a federal court in New York.
- The page gives November 27, 2023, and does not specify the attorney or AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
2023-11-22
Attorney Zachariah Crabill received a 90-day suspension after filing fabricated ChatGPT citations in a custody case and lying to the judge about their origin.
People v. Crabill · Zachariah Crabill · Colorado Office of Presiding Disciplinary Judge · CO
“In November 2023, a Colorado disciplinary judge approved a suspension of one year and one day, with 90 days to serve, for violations including competence, diligence, and candor to the tribunal.”
getvoibe.com ↗
The file →
- Zachariah Crabill was sanctioned in a Colorado custody case.
- He filed fabricated ChatGPT citations and then lied to the judge about their origin.
- The court imposed a 90-day suspension.
- Colorado state court.
- 2024; the page says this was not merely a fine.
Warned
ChatGPT
2023-08-22
The Delhi High Court warned that ChatGPT output cannot be the basis of adjudication and cautioned against fictional case laws and imaginative data.
Christian Louboutin SAS v. M/s The Shoe Boutique-Shutiq · Delhi High Court · DL
“the responses generated by ChatGPT cannot be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law.”
blog.ipleaders.in ↗
The file →
- Christian Louboutin SAS v. M/s The Shoe Boutique-Shutiq
- A party had leaned on ChatGPT in a trademark dispute
- The court issued a warning, not a money sanction
- Delhi High Court, Delhi
- 22 Aug 2023; the court warned against fictional case laws
Fined
$10K
ChatGPT
2023-06-30
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP submitted a brief with hallucinated citations, and the court sanctioned the firm and counsel.
In re: CFI Delegated Shareholder Litigation · Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP · Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware · DE
““The use of ChatGPT was not disclosed to the Court.””
Cases that don't exist
- Hsu v. Teco Energy, Inc., 2018 WL 5115675
- Morris v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 2015 WL 7293045
podcasts.apple.com ↗
The file →
- In re: CFI Delegated Shareholder Litigation against Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
- A filing included hallucinated citations generated with ChatGPT
- The court imposed a $10,000 monetary sanction
- Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Delaware
- The order noted the use of ChatGPT was not disclosed to the court
Warned
ChatGPT
2023-06-22
Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C. filed a submission with fake citations, and the court warned of sanctions but did not impose one.
Moten v. Apfel · Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
““The Court is deeply concerned that a lawyer would submit a brief with citations that do not exist.””
Cases that don't exist
- Martinez v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 2021 WL 4314517
- Moten v. Apfel, 2023 WL 4001202
podcasts.apple.com ↗
The file →
- Moten v. Apfel against Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C.
- A filing contained AI-fabricated legal citations
- The court issued a warning rather than a sanction
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, New York
- The judge said the court was deeply concerned about nonexistent citations
Fined
$5K
ChatGPT
2023-06-22
Steven Schwartz filed six ChatGPT-invented cases in a brief, and Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctioned him, co-counsel Peter LoDuca, and their firm.
Mata v. Avianca, Inc. · Steven Schwartz, Peter LoDuca, and their firm · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctioned Schwartz, co-counsel Peter LoDuca, and their firm $5,000.”
Cases that don't exist
- Miller v. DLA Piper LLP (US), 923 F.3d 1297
- Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217
- Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co. Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339
+3 more
gc.ai ↗
The file →
- Mata v. Avianca; Steven Schwartz, Peter LoDuca, and their firm
- Schwartz used ChatGPT and filed six nonexistent decisions with fabricated quotes and case numbers
- Monetary fine: $5,000
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- June 22, 2023; Judge P. Kevin Castel found they stood behind the fake cases after warning
A New York lawyer was sanctioned after filing briefs with fake court cases generated by ChatGPT.
In re Cathleen Siebrecht · Cathleen Siebrecht · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
smallwarsjournal.com ↗
The file →
- In re Cathleen Siebrecht involved Cathleen Siebrecht, a New York lawyer.
- She filed briefs citing fake court cases produced by ChatGPT.
- The court sanctioned her, but the article gives no amount.
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The page says this happened in 2023 and ties the citations to a ChatGPT hallucination.
Fined
$5K
2023-06-08
Cathleen Siebrecht filed documents with fictitious case law and legal arguments, and Judge P. Kevin Castel fined the lawyers involved $5,000.
In re Cathleen Siebrecht · Cathleen Siebrecht · U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico · NM
san.com ↗
The file →
- In re Cathleen Siebrecht; Cathleen Siebrecht was sanctioned.
- She submitted documents containing fictitious case law and legal arguments.
- The court imposed a $5,000 fine.
- U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, federal court in New Mexico.
- 2023-06-08; the page says this was an early high-profile AI-misuse case.
Warned
ChatGPT
2023-05-27
A lawyer submitted a filing with six non-existent cases invented by ChatGPT, and the judge called it absurd and considered sanctions.
A lawyer submitted a filing with six non-existent cases invented by ChatGPT · New York judge · NY
“The judge called it absurd and considered sanctions.”
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
- A lawyer filed a New York submission with fabricated cases.
- ChatGPT invented six non-existent cases in the filing.
- The judge considered sanctions but the page does not say they were imposed.
- New York.
- 27 May 2023; the judge called it absurd.
Caught, not sanctioned
2023-05-11
Butler Snow lawyers included AI-generated case citations in two court filings before Judge Anna Manasco.
Butler Snow LLP · Butler Snow LLP · US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · AL
delcantochambers.com ↗
The file →
- Butler Snow LLP was named for the Alabama filings.
- The firm included AI-generated case citations in two court filings.
- The page does not state a sanction, only the filings and judge's discovery.
- US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama; Judge Anna Manasco.
- May 2023; the article cites a Reuters report about the incident.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
2023-01-01
A litigant in person filed an appeal submission citing nine non-genuine authorities that were hallucinated by generative AI.
Harber v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs · UKFTT
hausfeld.com ↗
The file →
- Harber v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs involved a litigant in person
- She cited nine supportive authorities in an appeal submission
- The authorities were fabricated and hallucinated by generative AI
- No sanction is reported on this page
- UKFTT; the page gives 2023 and identifies ChatGPT as an example
Fined
$15K
ChatGPT
2023-01-01
Two lawyers filed a brief with fake cases after one used ChatGPT; the court imposed a $5,000 fine on each lawyer and the firm.
US 2023 sanctions matter involving two lawyers and their firm
“The summaries of the decisions cited in the brief showed “stylistic and reasoning flaws that do not generally appear in decisions issued by United States Courts of Appeals.””
posteo.de ↗
The file →
- Two lawyers and their law firm were sanctioned in the US.
- They filed a brief citing non-existent cases and could not produce them.
- The court imposed a $5,000 fine on each lawyer and the firm, totaling $15,000.
- US court; federal jurisdiction implied by the cited courts of appeals.
- In 2023; one lawyer had asked ChatGPT to provide supporting evidence.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
2023-01-01
The page says this 2023 South African case dealt with fake case law produced by ChatGPT, and the judge was more forgiving and found no intent to mislead.
Parker v Forsyth
theconversation.com ↗
The file →
- Parker v Forsyth is named as a 2023 South African case.
- The page says fake case law was produced by ChatGPT.
- The judge found no intent to mislead and was more forgiving.
- The court and judge are not named on the page.
- 2023; the page presents it as an earlier, less severe South African incident.
Caught, not sanctioned
ChatGPT
2023-01-01
An appellant filed nine bogus historical tribunal decisions as precedents and said it was possible she had used ChatGPT.
UK tax tribunal case · UK tax tribunal
lawsociety.org.zw ↗
The file →
- UK tax tribunal case involving an appellant
- Nine bogus historical tribunal decisions were submitted as supposed precedents
- The article reports no sanction; the appellant said it was possible she used ChatGPT
- UK tax tribunal
- 2023; the page says this was one of the earlier AI-hallucination cases
Fined
$5K
ChatGPT
2023-01-01
A lawyer was challenged over seven apparently fictitious cases, asked ChatGPT to summarize them, and the court imposed a $5,000 fine on the two lawyers and their firm.
2023 case in the US district court for the southern district of New York · US District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“the result, said the judge, was “gibberish””
lawsociety.org.zw ↗
The file →
- 2023 SDNY case involving a lawyer, two lawyers, and their firm
- Seven apparently fictitious cases were cited and ChatGPT was used to summarize them
- The court fined the two lawyers and their firm $5,000
- US District Court for the Southern District of New York
- 2023; the judge described the ChatGPT output as “gibberish”