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 141–150 of 251 incidents. Clear filters

Fined $1K CoCounsel 2026-04-28
A magistrate judge sanctioned Lenden Webb after Webb Law Group filed a brief with a fake citation partly caused by AI use and poor supervision.
Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (2) · Lenden Webb / Webb Law Group · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
vibegraveyard.ai ↗
The file →
  • Hill v. Workday involved Lenden Webb and Webb Law Group.
  • A discovery filing contained a fake citation caused in part by AI use and lack of supervision.
  • The court ordered a $1,001 personal payment and firmwide corrective steps.
  • The sanction came from the Northern District of California.
  • On 2026-04-28, Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang required CLE and circulation of court materials; the page names Westlaw CoCounsel.
Fined $5K Claude 2026-04-27
Raja Rajan filed court papers with made-up AI-generated case citations; Judge Kai N. Scott imposed a $5,000 sanction and required extra AI-and-ethics CLE.
Bunce v. Visual Tech. Innovations, Inc. · Raja Rajan · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
“any first-year law student knows you have to verify the authority cited, and warned that a third strike would mean referral to Pennsylvania's disciplinary board.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Bunce v. Visual Tech. Innovations Inc.; Raja Rajan of Cherry Hill, NJ
  • He used made-up, AI-generated case citations in filings for a second time
  • Judge Kai N. Scott fined him $5,000 and ordered additional CLE
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • 2026-04-20; Scott said there was no valid reason for not verifying the citations
Fined $5K 2026-04-27
Raja Rajan filed an AI-written brief with six false citations, and Judge Kai N. Scott sanctioned him $5,000 after a prior $2,500 sanction.
Raja Rajan matter · Raja Rajan · U.S. District Court (Philadelphia federal court) · NJ
compliancehub.wiki ↗
The file →
  • Raja Rajan was sanctioned again for AI hallucinations.
  • He used one AI chatbot to draft a brief and another to check citations.
  • The court imposed a $5,000 sanction after an earlier $2,500 sanction.
  • U.S. District Court (Philadelphia federal court); Judge Kai N. Scott.
  • April 27, 2026; the judge warned of a disciplinary referral if it happened again.
Fined $8K 2026-04-22
Appellant's opening brief used fabricated law from generative AI; the court struck it, denied amendment, and ordered appellant's attorneys to pay respondent's fees.
Williams v. Honl · Abby Shearer · Court of Appeals of Oregon · OR
“The brief on file “contain[ed] fabricated quotations and propositions of law falsely attributed to existing cases.””
caselaw.findlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Williams v. Honl; appellant's attorney Abby Shearer
  • Opening brief contained fabricated quotations and propositions of law from AI research
  • Court ordered $8,044.25 in attorney fees, not dismissal
  • Court of Appeals of Oregon, decided in Oregon
  • April 22, 2026; court said the brief had fabricated law and cited generative AI as the cause
Fined 2026-04-09
J. Scott Key filed arguments containing citations to nonexistent cases and statutes, and the court sanctioned the misuse.
Daniels v. New York State Department of Health · J. Scott Key · New York state court · NY
govinfo.gov ↗
The file →
  • Daniels v. New York State Department of Health; J. Scott Key was sanctioned.
  • He filed arguments that contained cites to nonexistent cases and statutes.
  • The court imposed a monetary fine, but the amount is not stated in the page.
  • New York state court, New York.
  • April 9, 2026; the page says the cites were the result of 'AI Hallucinations.'
Fined Lexis+ AI 2026-04-06
The State Bar Court approved discipline after Khalifeh filed a federal trademark brief with nonexistent and irrelevant AI-assisted citations and failed to disclose generative AI use.
Omid Emile Khalifeh · Omid Emile Khalifeh · State Bar Court · CA
“Courts and clients must be able to trust that the filings attorneys submit are accurate, supported, and compliant with professional standards,”
latimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Omid Emile Khalifeh was accused by the State Bar of California.
  • He filed an April 2025 federal trademark brief with a nonexistent citation and two irrelevant AI-assisted citations.
  • The State Bar Court approved discipline, including probation and a 30-day suspension.
  • State Bar Court, California.
  • April 6, 2026; he said the brief was informed by Lexis+ AI.
Fined CoCounsel 2026-04-03
The Sixth Circuit sanctioned an attorney after briefs generated by Westlaw’s CoCounsel contained fabricated quotations and misrepresented two real cases.
United States v. Farris · an attorney using Westlaw’s CoCounsel · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · KY
“The court held that citing "real legal authorities", as opposed to hallucinations featuring fictitious cases, did not absolve him.”

Cases that don't exist

  • United States v. Washington
  • United States v. Anthony
align.lawyer ↗
The file →
  • United States v. Farris involved an attorney using Westlaw’s CoCounsel.
  • Briefs generated by the AI contained fabricated quotations and misrepresented the holdings of two real cases.
  • The Sixth Circuit sanctioned the attorney.
  • The court was the Sixth Circuit, federal appellate court.
  • The order was dated Apr. 3, 2026, and involved legal-specific AI.
Fined $1K 2026-03-27
A lawyer filed papers with fabricated citations; the court imposed a monetary sanction and adverse costs and recommended CLE.
Amtrust North America o/b/o Justin McGinness v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company · D.N.J. · NJ
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Amtrust North America o/b/o Justin McGinness v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company involved a lawyer.
  • The filing contained fabricated citations.
  • The court imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction plus adverse costs and recommended CLE.
  • The case was in SC New Jersey.
  • Date: 2026-03-27; AI use was listed as implied.
Fined 2026-03-25
The court awarded increased litigation costs after a party made the proceedings chaotic through AI-generated pleadings.
Antwerp Court of Appeal ruling 2025/AR/774 · Antwerp Court of Appeal
ictrechtswijzer.be ↗
The file →
  • Antwerp Court of Appeal ruling 2025/AR/774; no attorney named
  • AI made the pleadings confusing, with changing facts and grounds
  • The court awarded increased litigation costs, with no amount stated
  • Antwerp Court of Appeal, Belgium
  • Dated 2026-03-25; the opposing party had to file extensive additional briefs
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.