legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
199
Incidents tracked
40
Incidents in 2026
$11,578
In fines, where reported
3 of 199 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 75 of 199 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 32 Gemini 4 Claude 2 Perplexity AI 2 AI Overviews 1 ChatGPT-4o 1 ChatOn 1 Eve 1 Grammarly 1 MX2.law 1 OpenCase 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

Showing 91–100 of 199 incidents. Clear filters

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