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 101–110 of 199 incidents. Clear filters

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