legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

Every incident where a lawyer got caught filing AI-fabricated citations. The Hall of Shame.

Embed this
858
Incidents tracked
265
Incidents in 2026
$2,417,608
In fines, where reported
214 of 858 report an amount

The curve

Incidents per month

Last 18 months of published incidents, by the date of the court's order.

Apr 2025 Sep 2026

Charting 450 of 858 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 151 Claude 9 CoCounsel 8 Copilot 8 Gemini 8 Lexis+ AI 6 AI-assisted legal software 4 Westlaw Precision 4 ChatGPT-4o 2 ChatOn 2 Eve 2 Google AI 2 LEAP 2 Perplexity AI 2 AI Overviews 1 Archie 1 Centient AI 1 ChatGPT-4 1 ClearBrief 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 GPT-3.5 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google Scholar 1 Grammarly 1 Grok 1 Irys 1 Legal Genius 1 LegalAI 1 MX2.law 1 OpenCase 1 Strongsuit 1 vLex Fastcase 1

Counts only incidents where the filing court or the reporting named the tool.

Hall of Shame

All Fined 251 Caught, not sanctioned 199 Warned 125 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 56 Filing dismissed 37 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
Warned
The court flagged local counsel's failure to police an AI-tainted brief and ordered show-cause briefing rather than imposing a final sanction.
Schramm v. Mayrack · U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware · DE
minchellalaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Schramm v. Mayrack involved unpoliced AI content in a brief.
  • Local counsel failed to check the AI-tainted brief and manage deadlines.
  • The court issued show-cause briefing rather than a final sanction.
  • The case was in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • The docket did not reflect a final sanction and the underlying matter went to appeal.
Reprimanded
An attorney was publicly reprimanded and ordered to disclose his sanction after filing documents drafted by his client containing AI-generated fabrications.
Chapman v. City of Priceville · Scott Morro · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · AL
“It appears likely from the nature of the misrepresentations that the filings at issue were generated by artificial intelligence.”
decaturdaily.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Scott Morro was sanctioned in a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of Garry Chapman against Priceville.
  • Morro submitted filings drafted by his client containing two fake case citations and imaginary quotes from seven other cases.
  • Judge Harold Mooty issued a public reprimand and ordered Morro to disclose the sanction in all his other cases by August 24.
  • The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
  • Morro admitted his standard practice was allowing his client to draft legal documents without pulling or reading the cited cases.
Caught, not sanctioned
A judge in Mississippi declined to impose new sanctions for separate AI flubs in a case, finding that sanctions imposed last year in a different case were sufficient punishment.
Lewis v. Entergy Mississippi, LLC · Mississippi Southern · MS
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • In Lewis v. Entergy Mississippi, LLC, a Mississippi federal judge addressed AI citation issues.
  • The court considered AI flubs in a new case.
  • The judge declined new sanctions, finding prior sanctions for similar AI misuse sufficient.
  • This incident occurred in the Mississippi Southern federal court.
  • The incident date is not specified, but the judge's decision noted prior sanctions from last year, implying a recent decision.
Caught, not sanctioned
Former Irish Independent journalist and activist Gemma O’Doherty cited legal authorities that "simply did not exist" in the Court of Appeal, but the court did not believe she intended to mislead.
Gemma O’Doherty · Gemma O’Doherty · Court of Appeal
irishtimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Gemma O’Doherty cited non-existent legal authorities.
  • She used AI to generate legal arguments.
  • No sanction was imposed as the court did not believe she intended to mislead.
  • Court of Appeal
  • March: The court noted the non-existent citations, and that no guidance was available for self-representing litigants.
Outcome unclear ChatGPT
Two barristers attempted to rely on fake cases generated by ChatGPT in their submissions to the court.
Mata v Avianca 22-cv-1461(PKC)
“"Many harms flow from the submission of fake [judgments]. The opposing party wastes time and money in exposing the deception. The Court's time is taken from other important endeavors. The client may be deprived of arguments based on authentic judicial precedents. There is potential harm to the reputation of judges and courts whose names are falsely invoked as authors of the bogus opinions and to the reputation of a party attributed with fictional conduct. It promotes cynicism about the legal profession and the…judicial system. And a future litigant may be tempted to defy a judicial ruling by disingenuously claiming doubt about its authenticity."”
burges-salmon.com ↗
The file →
  • In Mata v Avianca, two barristers sought to rely on AI-generated fake cases.
  • The barristers presented fabricated case law created by ChatGPT.
  • The article does not specify a sanction type or amount.
  • The incident occurred in a US federal court, with Judge P. Kevin Castel presiding.
  • The incident date is not specified, but ChatGPT was the AI tool used, and Judge Castel emphasized the seriousness of submitting fake judgments.
Fined 2026-08-13
A Brazilian attorney used AI without review to cite fake case law, resulting in a 2% procedural fine for bad-faith litigation and a bar referral.
Apelação Cível nº 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224 · TJ San Paulo
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Apelação Cível nº 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224 involves an unnamed lawyer sanctioned for bad-faith litigation.
  • The attorney used an unreviewed AI tool to cite non-existent jurisprudential precedents.
  • The court imposed a 2% procedural fine (1 BRL) and referred the lawyer to the OAB.
  • TJ San Paulo, Brazil.
  • Order issued August 13, 2026; court noted AI fabrications violate duties of probity and good faith.
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.
Fined $2K ChatGPT
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.

Showing 91–100 of 858.

Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.