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 111–120 of 125 incidents. Clear filters

Warned 2025-07-25
A representative filed authorities the tribunal could not verify and found some propositions were not in the cited cases, treating the false citations as unreasonable conduct.
Chandra v Royal Mail Group · The Claimant’s representative · Employment tribunal
““12. While these appeared to be important and relevant citations of law, the tribunal on investigation could not find those propositions of law in those cases, and could not find one of the cases referred to. It seemed to the tribunal that these may have been generated by AI””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Chandra v Royal Mail Group involved the claimant’s representative.
  • He cited authorities that could not be verified and one case that did not exist.
  • The tribunal found the false citations were unreasonable conduct.
  • Employment tribunal; jurisdiction and location were not stated beyond the tribunal.
  • 25 July 2025; the tribunal said the citations may have been generated by AI.
Warned 2025-07-25
Bione X, LLC filed citations with hallmarks of cases generated by AI, and GAO dismissed the protest for failure to state a claim while warning about sanctions.
Bione X, LLC · Government Accountability Office
centrelawgroup.com ↗
The file →
  • Bione X, LLC was dismissed after AI-like citations appeared in its filing.
  • GAO said the citations had hallmarks of cases generated by AI.
  • The protest was dismissed for failure to state a claim and GAO reiterated its sanctions warning.
  • Government Accountability Office; federal protest decision.
  • July 25, 2025; GAO focused on unverified AI drafting.
Warned Copilot 2025-07-23
Lawyer used Copilot resulting in false legal quotes and was ordered to undergo continuing legal education.
Vita Law Offices v. Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. · S.D. Florida · FL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Vita Law Offices v. Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. involving an attorney
  • Counsel submitted false quotes from case law generated via Copilot
  • Court ordered the attorney to undergo mandatory CLE
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
  • Order issued on July 23, 2025
Warned 2025-07-07
Wright Brothers Aero, Inc. admitted an erroneous citation was introduced via AI software, and GAO dismissed the protest as untimely while warning of sanctions.
Wright Brothers Aero, Inc. · Government Accountability Office
centrelawgroup.com ↗
The file →
  • Wright Brothers Aero, Inc. was dismissed after an AI-introduced citation error.
  • The protester admitted the erroneous citation came from AI software.
  • GAO dismissed the protest as untimely and warned that continued misuse may lead to sanctions.
  • Government Accountability Office; federal bid protest forum.
  • July 7, 2025; the warning appeared in a footnote.
Warned 2025-06-20
A litigant-in-person and a trade mark attorney relied on AI-generated inaccuracies, and the tribunal issued warnings to both.
BL O/0559/25 · UKIPO trade mark appeal tribunal
counselmagazine.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • BL O/0559/25 is a UKIPO trade mark appeal.
  • Both a litigant-in-person and a trade mark attorney relied on AI-generated inaccuracies.
  • The tribunal warned both participants.
  • The article says the attorney’s breach was particularly severe.
  • The incident was dated 20 June 2025.
Warned 2025-05-07
Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC filed a protest with citations to purported GAO decisions that could not be found, and GAO dismissed it with an AI-related warning.
Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC · Government Accountability Office
“wastes the time of all parties and GAO”
centrelawgroup.com ↗
The file →
  • Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC was dismissed after filing questionable citations.
  • The protest included citations to purported GAO decisions that could not be found.
  • GAO dismissed the protest and issued its first apparent AI-related warning about sanctions.
  • Government Accountability Office; federal bid protest decision.
  • May 7, 2025; GAO linked the problem to unverified AI drafting.
Warned 2025-01-01
An employee used a generative AI platform for Authority responses, including hallucinated cases and incorrectly cited authorities, and the Authority issued a reminder to check AI output.
QTR v BXD · Employment Relations Authority
simpsongrierson.com ↗
The file →
  • QTR v BXD involved an employee in the Authority process
  • The responses contained hallucinated legal cases and incorrect citations
  • The Authority issued a reminder, not a monetary penalty
  • Employment Relations Authority, New Zealand
  • 2025; the AI use also involved confidential and personal workplace information
Warned 2025-01-01
A lawyer used AI to prepare written documents citing cases that did not exist, and the Full Court said this breached the duty not to mislead the court.
Helmond & Mariya (No 2) · Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
“Artificial intelligence is a tool that carries with it risks as well as opportunities. Its use must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained”
kennedypartnerslawyers.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Helmond & Mariya (No 2) involved a lawyer who used AI to prepare written documents.
  • The documents cited cases that did not exist.
  • The Full Court emphasized the duty not to mislead the court and high ethical obligations on lawyers.
  • Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
  • 2025; the page quotes the President of the King's Bench Division on AI oversight.
Warned 2025-01-01
A lawyer relied on three nonexistent cases and one misstated case, and the court ordered submissions on why she should not be held in contempt.
Ko v. Li · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
“Irrespective of issues concerning artificial intelligence, counsel who misrepresent the law, submit fake case precedents, or who utterly misrepresent the holdings of cases cited as precedents, violate their duties to the court.”
calgarydefence.com ↗
The file →
  • Ko v. Li involved another lawyer.
  • She cited three nonexistent cases and one wrong case in written and oral submissions.
  • The court ordered contempt-response submissions, not a stated fine.
  • Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario.
  • 2025 ONSC 2985; the court warned that fake precedents violate duties to the court.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.