legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
101
Incidents tracked
31
Incidents in 2026
$386,941
In fines, where reported
14 of 101 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 60 of 101 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 17 Claude 2 CoCounsel 2 LEAP 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 ChatGPT-4 1 Copilot 1 GPT-3.5 1 Gemini 1 Legal Genius 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 101 incidents. Clear filters

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.
Al-Haroun v. Qatar National Bank · Abid Hussain; Primus Solicitors · High Court of Justice, Divisional Court
“a matter of the utmost seriousness”
global.lockton.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 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) · counsel in R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey · High Court of Justice (Administrative 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.”
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
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.
Referred to the bar 2025-04-02
Attorney Felipe Millan filed a brief with hallucinated cases from a freelancer and the court upheld a referral to the state bar for sanctions.
Dehghani v. Castro · Felipe Millan · D.N.M. · NM
““Mr. Millan’s primary grievance is that [the Judge] did not appropriately weigh his good intentions.”
thomsonreuters.com ↗
The file →
  • Dehghani v. Castro involving an immigration attorney.
  • Attorney bought a brief from a freelance writer containing generative AI fabrications.
  • Fined, required to attend CLE, and ordered to self-report to state bar authorities.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.
  • Dated April 2, 2025; court established that outsourcing drafting does not absolve signature duties.
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 · Pietermaritzburg High Court · South Africa
“irresponsible and downright unprofessional”
legal500.com ↗
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.
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 · 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.”
lawsociety.ie ↗
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.
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.
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 LEAP 2024-08-27
Counsel submitted unverified AI-generated authorities and was referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board, which later restricted his practice.
In re 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.
Referred to the bar 2024-08-13
Plaintiff's counsel submitted fabricated Israeli Supreme Court quotations and was referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration.
Nitzan v. Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd. · Adv. Faris · Magistrate Court
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Nitzan v. Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd. involved Adv. Faris.
  • Attorney submitted fake Supreme Court case citations and misattributed quotes in response to a motion.
  • Court referred the matter to the Legal Department of the Court Administration.
  • Magistrate Court of Israel (Judge Daniel Kirs).
  • Order issued August 13, 2024; attorney denied using AI despite classic hallucination markers.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.