legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
151
Incidents tracked
26
Incidents in 2026
$542,786
In fines, where reported
50 of 151 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 60 of 151 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 151 Claude 9 CoCounsel 8 Copilot 8 Gemini 8 Lexis+ AI 6 AI-assisted legal software 4 Westlaw Precision 4 ChatGPT-4o 2 ChatOn 2 Eve 2 Google AI 2 LEAP 2 Perplexity AI 2 AI Overviews 1 Archie 1 Centient AI 1 ChatGPT-4 1 ClearBrief 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 GPT-3.5 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google Scholar 1 Grammarly 1 Grok 1 Irys 1 Legal Genius 1 LegalAI 1 MX2.law 1 OpenCase 1 Strongsuit 1 vLex Fastcase 1

Counts only incidents where the filing court or the reporting named the tool.

Hall of Shame

All Fined 53 Caught, not sanctioned 32 Warned 19 Referred to the bar 17 Reprimanded 13 Filing dismissed 10 Outcome unclear 6 Suspension 1

Showing 131–140 of 151 incidents involving ChatGPT. Clear filters

Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-03-31
The court found seven of nine cited authorities were non-existent, apparently AI-generated, refused leave to appeal, and referred the matter to the Legal Practice Council.
Mavundla v MEC Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs KwaZulu-Natal and Others · Pietermaritzburg High Court · South Africa
“irresponsible and downright unprofessional”
legal500.com ↗
The file →
  • Mavundla v MEC: Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs KwaZulu-Natal and Others
  • Seven of nine authorities in the applicant’s submissions were found to be entirely non-existent, apparently generated by AI.
  • The court refused leave to appeal and referred the matter to the Legal Practice Council.
  • Pietermaritzburg High Court, South Africa.
  • Judge Bezuidenhout; the article says this was the clearest African example of AI hallucinations contaminating filings.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-01-31
A lawyer filed submissions with false citations and quotes generated by ChatGPT, and Judge Skaros referred the conduct to the regulatory body.
Valu v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
“The conduct of the ALR, in filing an application and submissions which contained citations to Federal Court of Australia cases which do not exist and alleged quotes from the Tribunal’s decision which do not exist, falls short of the standard of competence and diligence that the applicant in the substantive proceedings was entitled to expect from his legal representative.”
lawsociety.ie ↗
The file →
  • Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) involved a lawyer referred to the regulatory body.
  • The filings contained false citations and quotes generated using ChatGPT.
  • Judge Skaros referred the lawyer's conduct for consideration.
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).
  • 2025-01-31; the conduct also involved correspondence with the Court without the consent of the other parties.
Filing dismissed ChatGPT 2025-01-01
The court dismissed a damages claim after the plaintiff's ChatGPT-assisted complaint relied on inaccurate or non-existent legal bases.
AI-written lawsuit dismissed by the court · Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu
“the statement of claim having been drafted entirely with the assistance of ChatGPT.”
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
  • AI-written lawsuit dismissed by the court; the plaintiff
  • The complaint was drafted entirely with ChatGPT and used inaccurate or non-existent legal bases
  • The court dismissed the claim as unfounded
  • Wrocław, Poland
  • 2025; the court said responsibility for the content rested with the plaintiff
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2025-01-01
The appellant filed written submissions with six inaccurate cited decisions and one apparently fictitious case; the court ignored the authorities and denied costs.
NCR v KKB, 2025 ABKB 417 · Alberta Court of King’s Bench
“Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court. Unchecked, it can lead to the miscarriage of justice.”
hayherlee.com ↗
The file →
  • NCR v KKB, 2025 ABKB 417 involved a self-represented mother.
  • Her written submissions cited six inaccurate decisions and one apparently fictitious case.
  • The court denied costs and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
  • The decision was from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench.
  • The court inferred possible AI-generated content and quoted Zhang v Chen about fake cases.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-01-01
A barrister cited a false case generated by ChatGPT and the Upper Tribunal referred the barrister to the BSB after the citation was not checked.
MS (Bangladesh) (Professional Conduct: AI Generated Documents) · Upper Tribunal
5essex.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • MS (Bangladesh) (Professional Conduct: AI Generated Documents) involved a barrister.
  • The barrister cited a false case generated by ChatGPT and failed to check its authenticity.
  • The Upper Tribunal referred the barrister to the BSB.
  • Upper Tribunal, location not stated on the page.
  • The article says the tribunal applied Ayinde guidance and the false citation came from ChatGPT.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2024-12-30
A representative pasted chatbot-supplied fake Supreme Court and Madras High Court citations into the tribunal record; the order was recalled within a week.
Buckeye Trust v. PCIT · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru bench · KA
medianama.com ↗
The file →
  • ITAT Bengaluru bench matter
  • An order cited four non-existent judgments from unverified ChatGPT use
  • The bench recalled the order; no formal sanction is stated
  • Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru
  • December 2024; the citations were traced back to ChatGPT
Fined $2K ChatGPT 2024-11-04
Judge Fred W. Slaughter imposed $2,000 in sanctions on William Becker Jr. for filing a motion with alleged non-existent case citations and misrepresentations of existing law.
William Becker Jr. · William Becker Jr · US District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“Sanctions were warranted against Becker for “his failure to verify the validity of the AI-generated material, and submitting the AI-tainted Motion to the court,” the judge said.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • William Becker Jr. was sanctioned in the Chris Kluwe-related case.
  • He filed a motion with AI-hallucinated/non-existent citations and misrepresented existing case law.
  • The court imposed $2,000 in sanctions.
  • US District Court for the Central District of California; Judge Fred W. Slaughter.
  • Nov. 4 order; the page says the motion was AI-tainted and Becker was told to show cause.
Fined ChatGPT 2024-02-20
A lawyer submitted filings with AI-generated case citations; the BC Supreme Court declined special costs but held her personally liable for other costs.
Zhang v. Chen · counsel in Zhang v. Chen · Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada · BC
“Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement … Unchecked, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice.”
corp-intl.com ↗
The file →
  • In Zhang v. Chen, counsel faced sanctions.
  • Two fabricated cases were cited in a parenting time application, with delayed disclosure.
  • Special costs were refused, but costs were ordered personally against counsel.
  • The incident occurred in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, with Justice Masuhara.
  • On 2024-02-20, ChatGPT was admitted as the source, and counsel was ordered to review other files.
Fined $2K ChatGPT 2024-02-12
Plaintiff's counsel filed opposition memoranda containing four fictitious AI-generated citations and was fined $2,000 under Rule 11.
Smith v. Farwell · Suffolk Superior Court · MA
“two disturbing developments that are adversely affecting the practice of law”
klemchuk.com ↗
The file →
  • Smith v. Farwell involved plaintiff's counsel filing fictitious citations.
  • Counsel filed four memoranda with three containing four fake cases from an AI tool.
  • Court fined counsel $2,000 for Rule 11 violations.
  • Norfolk Superior Court, Massachusetts, presided over by Judge Brian A. Davis.
  • Date: February 2024; judge noted a defense based on ignorance will be less credible.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2024-01-30
The Second Circuit referred attorney Jae S. Lee to its grievance panel after he cited a ChatGPT-generated non-existent case in a reply brief.
Park v. Kim · Jae S. Lee · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · NY
“well below the basic obligations of counsel”
llms-for-lawyers.com ↗
The file →
  • Park v. Kim involved Jae S. Lee of JSL Law Offices.
  • She cited a non-existent case in a reply brief and admitted ChatGPT use.
  • The Second Circuit referred her to its Grievance Panel.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  • January 30, 2024; the panel said her conduct was well below the basic obligations of counsel.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.