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 121–130 of 199 incidents. Clear filters

Caught, not sanctioned 2026-06-29
A lawyer submitted filings containing false quotes from case law, but no sanctions were imposed.
Marquez v. Dreiling · D. Kansas · KS
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Marquez v. Dreiling, a lawyer was identified.
  • The lawyer submitted filings that included false quotes from case law, suggesting AI-generated content.
  • No sanction was imposed despite the false quotes.
  • The incident took place in a federal court, the District of Kansas.
  • On June 29, 2026, the court decided not to impose sanctions after this incident.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-06-26
A mandamus petition relied on multiple AI-generated hallucinations and misrepresentations of precedent, but the majority did not impose sanctions.
Ex parte A.I.F.-H. f/k/a A.I.F. · CA Alabama · AL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Ex parte A.I.F.-H. f/k/a A.I.F., a pro se litigant was involved.
  • A mandamus petition relied on multiple AI-generated hallucinations, including a fabricated case citation and false quotes.
  • The court's majority did not impose sanctions, though a dissent argued for dismissal.
  • The case was heard in the Court of Appeals of Alabama, a state court.
  • On June 26, 2026, the court decided against sanctions despite the AI-generated errors.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-06-16
Plaintiff counsel submitted filings with AI-driven errors including fabricated citations, false quotes, and mischaracterizations, but no sanctions were imposed given good faith and remedial efforts.
Jacob Doe v. The University of North Carolina System, et al. · U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina · NC
“The Court has refrained from discharging the show cause order pending counsel's preparation of the article.”
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Jacob Doe v. The University of North Carolina System, et al., plaintiff counsel was involved.
  • Counsel submitted filings containing multiple AI-driven errors, including fabricated citations and hallucinated quotations.
  • No sanctions were imposed as counsel acted in good faith and made remedial efforts, despite the court's strong disappointment.
  • The incident occurred in a federal court, the Western District of North Carolina.
  • On June 16, 2026, the court discharged the show-cause order without sanctions, acknowledging counsel's good faith and remedial actions regarding AI misuse.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-06-12
The court noted non-existent case citations in opposition papers but declined to impose sanctions or penalties against appellate counsel.
Vargas v. MTA Bus Co. · SC New York · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Vargas v. MTA Bus Co. involving unnamed appellate counsel
  • Opposition papers contained citations to non-existent AI-generated cases
  • No sanctions or monetary penalties were imposed
  • New York Supreme Court
  • Decided June 12, 2026; court adjusted filing order since underlying law was correct
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-06-06
The court flagged incorrect and untraceable AI-generated citations relied upon in the decision while upholding the impugned order.
Principal, Woodland House School & Ors. v. Shakeel Ahmad Malik · HC Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Srinagar
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Principal, Woodland House School & Ors. v. Shakeel Ahmad Malik
  • Judge relied on untraceable and fabricated case law citations
  • Court upheld order but explicitly flagged the incorrect citations
  • HC Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Srinagar (India)
  • Decided June 6, 2026
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-06-03
The Québec Superior Court set aside a labour arbitrator’s decision after finding the arbitrator used AI to draft reasons containing false, non-existent authorities.
Association des ressources intermédiaires d'hébergement du Québec (ARIHQ) c. Santé Québec - Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal · Michel Jeanniot · Québec Superior Court
“Material parts of the arbitrator’s reasons relied on false references to authorities.”
canliiconnects.org ↗
The file →
  • Association des ressources intermédiaires d'hébergement du Québec (ARIHQ) c. Santé Québec - Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal; labour arbitrator's decision was challenged
  • The arbitrator’s reasons were written with the assistance of artificial intelligence and contained false references to authorities
  • The court set aside the decision; no monetary sanction is stated
  • Québec Superior Court, Québec
  • June 3, 2026; the court described the references as non-existent and “delusional”
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-05-20
Pro se plaintiffs used AI to draft filings and submitted fabricated legal authority; the court discussed the misconduct but imposed no sanction in this decision.
Torres v. Spraker · Jose Torres and Aidria Torres · Supreme Court, Montgomery County · NY

Cases that don't exist

  • Gurpreet Kaur v Desso, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129902
  • Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 779 F. Supp. 3d 341, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78895, 2025 WL 1195925
  • Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443
nycourts.gov ↗
The file →
  • Torres v. Spraker; Jose Torres and Aidria Torres were the parties using AI.
  • They admitted using artificial intelligence to draft legal documents and cited no caselaw.
  • The court noted AI is not legal authority and discussed fabricated citations.
  • Supreme Court, Montgomery County, New York; Judge Rebecca A. Slezak.
  • May 20, 2026; the opinion cited Mata and other AI-citation cases, but imposed no sanction here.
Caught, not sanctioned MX2.law 2026-05-18
Justice Kenneth Salinger denied T. Michael Morgan’s pro hac vice motion after he was sanctioned in Wyoming for filing motions citing eight nonexistent AI-hallucinated cases.
Glenn Wilder and Others v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Others · T. Michael Morgan · Suffolk County Superior Court · MA
“Attorney Morgan disclosed that he was sanctioned by the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming for violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) because he signed motions in limine without reading them and, as a result, permitted the filing of motions citing eight non-existent cases that had been hallucinated by Morgan & Morgan's in-house Artificial Intelligence ("AI") platform.”
aei.org ↗
The file →
  • Wilder v. President & Fellows of Harvard College involving attorney T. Michael Morgan
  • Disclosed a prior Wyoming sanction for submitting 8 AI-hallucinated cases generated by an in-house platform
  • Motion to appear pro hac vice was denied by the court
  • Massachusetts Superior Court under Justice Kenneth W. Salinger
  • Decided May 18, 2026, demonstrating that past AI sanctions impact future pro hac vice applications
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-05-12
Court struck a pro se plaintiff's summary judgment filings containing three AI-fabricated case citations, declining monetary penalties due to her pro se status.
Gully v. Varghese · New York Supreme Court, Albany County · NY
nycivillaw.blog ↗
The file →
  • Gully v. Varghese involved a pro se plaintiff who submitted AI-fabricated citations.
  • All three legal citations in the plaintiff's summary judgment motion were fake AI fabrications.
  • The court struck the filings but declined monetary penalties because the plaintiff was pro se.
  • Decided in New York Supreme Court, Albany County.
  • Order issued on May 12, 2026, ruling that pro se status does not excuse failing to verify legal authorities.
Caught, not sanctioned Claude 2026-05-06
A court filing in the Trump layoffs case contained phantom legal quotations generated by Claude Console, prompting sanctions scrutiny.
Trump layoffs court filing involving phantom legal quotations · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · NY
incidentdatabase.ai ↗
The file →
  • Trump layoffs court filing involving phantom legal quotations
  • Claude Console generated the false legal quotations in the filing
  • The page does not say a sanction was imposed
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
  • 2026-05-06; the incident was about fabricated quotations, not citations
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.