legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
251
Incidents tracked
81
Incidents in 2026
$1,813,310
In fines, where reported
186 of 251 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 139 of 251 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 53 Claude 4 Lexis+ AI 4 Westlaw Precision 4 CoCounsel 3 Copilot 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 Archie 1 ChatOn 1 ClearBrief 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 Gemini 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google AI 1 Google Scholar 1 Grok 1 Irys 1 vLex Fastcase 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 121–130 of 251 incidents. Clear filters

Fined $6K 2026-06-11
The trial court ordered attorneys representing plaintiffs in a wage and hour class action to pay $5,000 to the opposing party and $1,000 to the court for filing a brief containing non-existent citations, fabricated quotations, and misrepresenting controlling authority due to "evident misuse of generative artificial intelligence (AI)"; the Court of Appeal affirmed the sanctions.
Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC · California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District · CA
“The trial court described the filing as containing “nonexistent citations” and “fictitious quotations,” ultimately imposing sanctions under California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7.”
proskauer.com ↗
The file →
  • In Quinteros v. Harbor Distrib., LLC, unnamed attorneys were sanctioned for AI misuse.
  • The attorneys filed a brief containing non-existent citations, fabricated quotations, and misrepresented controlling authority.
  • They were ordered to pay $5,000 to the opposing party and $1,000 to the court, totaling $6,000 in monetary fines.
  • The sanctions were imposed by a California trial court and affirmed by the California Court of Appeal.
  • The incident date is unspecified, and the sanctions were for "evident misuse of generative artificial intelligence (AI)".
Fined $5K Copilot 2026-06-11
Ginsburg filed a brief with a fake case, fake quotes, and incorrect legal propositions, and the court imposed sanctions and struck the response.
McCormick v. Texakoma Financial, Inc. · Amy L.B. Ginsburg · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas · TX
“If someone—even an intern—gets the case name, number, year, and quotation wrong, they are not struggling with research or citation formatting. They are struggling with honesty.”
tcpaworld.com ↗
The file →
  • McCormick v. Texakoma Financial, Inc. against Amy L.B. Ginsburg
  • Brief contained a fake case, fake quotes, and incorrect legal propositions
  • Court ordered a $5,000 penalty and struck the response
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texas
  • June 11, 2026; court also ordered publication, CLE, and future verification certification
Fined $9K First Drafts 2026-06-08
Judge Sharion Aycock sanctioned four lawyers after both sides filed briefs citing AI-invented cases, cancelled the trial, and paused the proceedings.
Withers v. City of Aberdeen · Kathleen Wilson · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · MS
““This case presents the Court with an unusual scenario — attorneys for both litigants engaged in similar sanctionable conduct,””
legalcheek.com ↗
The file →
  • Contract dispute in the City of Aberdeen fee case before Judge Sharion Aycock.
  • Both sides' filings cited cases the court found did not exist after AI research and drafting.
  • Four lawyers were sanctioned; the two drafting lawyers were fined $2,500 and $3,500, and the other two were fined $1,000 each.
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
  • June 11, 2026; the order said the duty to verify work “is absolute” and “cannot be outsourced to technology or delegated to co-counsel”.
Fined $500 2026-06-05
The court struck a response with fictitious authorities after the respondent admitted using AI, and allowed amendment conditioned on a $500 sanction.
Witkin v. McGreevy · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
apps.oregon.gov ↗
The file →
  • Witkin v. McGreevy involved a respondent who filed a response with fictitious authorities and inaccurate legal arguments.
  • The respondent admitted using AI, but fully complied with the court's show-cause order and clarified each citation.
  • Sanction type: monetary fine of $500 conditioned on filing an amended response.
  • Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon; state court order issued on 2026-06-05.
  • The court granted leave to amend after the respondent agreed to the $500 sanction; the AI tool was not named.
Fined $5K Westlaw Precision 2026-06-03
Two Orange County immigration attorneys filed a brief with nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations; the Ninth Circuit suspended each for six months and fined each $2,500.
Lnu v. Blanche · Mike Singh Sethi; Sethi Law Group; William Rounds; Bill Rounds Attorney at Law PC · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · CA
“We issue this disciplinary order, and explain our reasoning at some length, as a warning to the members of this Court's bar: be aware of the risks of overreliance on generative AI, read everything cited in a court filing—whether drafted by generative AI or not—and disclose quickly and transparently generative AI hallucinations that are inadvertently included in court filings….”

Cases that don't exist

  • Eduardo v. Garland, 28 F.4th 742 (9th Cir. 2022)
  • Lay v. Holder, 729 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2013)
llms-for-lawyers.com ↗
The file →
  • LNU v. Blanche; attorney Mike Singh Sethi was sanctioned with co-counsel William Rounds.
  • He filed briefs with nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations, later calling them typographical errors.
  • The Ninth Circuit suspended him from practice before the court for six months.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Judge Richard Paez, Carlos Bea, and Danielle Forrest.
  • The order said generative AI hallucinations had been included in filings and warned lawyers to read every citation.
Fined $10K 2026-06-01
A non-attorney filed AI-generated legal arguments with non-existent cases; the Missouri Court of Appeals fined him $10,000 in the opposing party’s attorney’s fees.
Boatner v. Hickerson · Missouri Court of Appeals · MO
carnahanevans.com ↗
The file →
  • Boatner v. Hickerson involved a non-attorney using AI-generated arguments.
  • Of six cited cases, four did not exist and two were only mentioned by name.
  • The court sanctioned him $10,000 in the opposing party’s attorney’s fees.
  • Missouri Court of Appeals, Missouri.
  • The article says the AI again made up several non-existent cases.
Fined $5K 2026-06-01
Counsel filed appellate briefs with hallucinated quotations, citations, and record-contradicted facts; the Seventh Circuit denied the petition and imposed a $5,000 Rule 46(c) sanction.
Heriberto Perez-Castillo v. Todd W. Blanche · Abdullah Salah · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
casemine.com ↗
The file →
  • Heriberto Perez-Castillo v. Todd W. Blanche; attorney Abdullah Salah was sanctioned.
  • He filed two briefs containing hallucinated quotations/citations and record-contradicted facts.
  • The Seventh Circuit imposed a $5,000 fine under Fed. R. App. P. 46(c).
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; federal; Illinois.
  • June 1, 2026; the court said he did not review either brief for accuracy.
Fined $2K 2026-05-28
A lawyer submitted filings with fabricated and misrepresented case law, resulting in an adverse costs order of 2000 USD.
Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. STI-NY, LLC · SC New York · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer was involved in Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. STI-NY, LLC.
  • Fabricated and misrepresented case law were submitted.
  • The court issued an adverse costs order of 2000 USD.
  • The incident occurred in the Supreme Court of New York.
  • Dated May 28, 2026, the AI tool was unidentified.
Fined $250 2026-05-27
A pro se father cited one nonexistent case using generative AI, and the court sanctioned him $250.
Matter of Julien v. Arthur · Kevin A. Julien · Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · NY
“The father's appellate brief contained a citation to a nonexistent decision purportedly issued by the Appellate Division, First Department, in support of the father's claim of judicial bias.”
nycourts.gov ↗
The file →
  • Matter of Julien v. Arthur involved a pro se litigant.
  • He cited one nonexistent case with generative AI.
  • The court imposed a $250 sanction.
  • Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
  • Decision dated May 27, 2026; the court noted it was only a single AI hallucination.
Fined $2K 2026-05-21
A lawyer submitted filings with fabricated and misrepresented case law, resulting in a monetary sanction, bar referral, mandatory audit, and adverse costs.
In re the Marriage of Amy Haddock and Justin Blu Haddock · DC Oklahoma · OK
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In re the Marriage of Amy Haddock and Justin Blu Haddock involved a lawyer using an implied AI tool.
  • The lawyer filed documents with fabricated and misrepresented case law.
  • The lawyer received a $2,000 monetary sanction, bar referral, mandatory audit of firm knowledge base, and adverse costs (later $20,752).
  • The incident occurred in the DC Oklahoma, a state court.
  • The sanction was issued on May 21, 2026, due to AI-generated legal fabrications.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.