legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
125
Incidents tracked
50
Incidents in 2026
$4,000
In fines, where reported
1 of 125 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 73 of 125 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 19 Copilot 5 AI-assisted legal software 2 ChatGPT-4o 1 Claude 1 CoCounsel 1 Lexis+ AI 1 Strongsuit 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 125 incidents. Clear filters

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
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 for the District of Columbia · DC
“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.
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.
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
Warned 2025-09-11
The court issued a show cause order after finding counsel's motion contained incomplete, inaccurate, and fabricated AI-generated citations.
USA v. Brewer · M.D. Florida · FL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • USA v. Brewer involving counsel
  • Motion contained two fabricated citations, four false quotes, and misrepresented case law
  • Court issued an Order to Show Cause regarding potential sanctions
  • U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (M.D. Florida)
  • Order issued on September 11, 2025; court described errors as typical AI hallucinations
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
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.
Warned AI-assisted legal software 2025-08-19
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
Warned 2025-08-14
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 involved defense counsel.
  • Submissions contained fabricated case law, legal norms, and fictitious quotes.
  • No professional sanctions or monetary penalties were imposed after counsel corrected filings.
  • Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia).
  • Decided August 14, 2025.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.