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 141–150 of 199 incidents. Clear filters

Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2026-03-23
A solicitor filed appeal grounds with a fake citation and later admitted likely using Google’s AI mode and ChatGPT; the Upper Tribunal criticized the conduct but imposed no sanction.
UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department · UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“The Upper Tribunal pointedly noted that it cannot afford to have its limited resources absorbed by representatives who place false information before the Tribunal.”
briefonline.com.au ↗
The file →
  • UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a solicitor on the record.
  • He filed grounds of appeal containing a false citation and initially denied AI use.
  • The tribunal noted the conduct but did not impose a sanction in this article.
  • UK Upper Tribunal (IAC), England and Wales.
  • March 23, 2026; the article says the solicitor likely used Google’s AI mode and had used ChatGPT for client emails and summaries.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-03-19
Panas filed an AI-written appellate brief with fake citations, and the court said the brief could be stricken but chose not to impose monetary sanctions.
Sheerer v. Panas · Thomas Panas · California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four · CA
“Respondent’s conduct in this regard is a patent violation of the Rules of Court and alone, merits striking his brief.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Sheerer v. Panas; self-represented father contesting a child-support order.
  • Party used fabricated legal citations in court filings.
  • No sanctions imposed because the party admitted the error and sanctions would harm the children's best interests.
  • California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four (State court).
  • Partially published opinion issued on March 19.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-03-16
A Rotterdam lawyer previously called out for AI-hallucinated case law again submitted non-existent judgments at the same court, and the court disregarded the reliance on that purported case law.
Lawyer previously reprimanded again cites AI case law · a Rotterdam lawyer · Rotterdam court
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
  • A Rotterdam lawyer was involved again after an earlier callout.
  • The lawyer submitted non-existent judgments at the same court.
  • The court disregarded the reliance on the purported case law.
  • Rotterdam court.
  • 16 March 2026; the page does not state a sanction.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-02-17
The Chief Justice-led bench flagged lawyers filing AI-drafted petitions that cited non-existent judgments, including one styled Mercy vs Mankind.
Mercy vs Mankind · Supreme Court of India
“There was a case of Mercy vs Mankind which does not exist,”

Cases that don't exist

  • Mercy v. Mankind
m.economictimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Mercy vs Mankind was cited before the Supreme Court of India.
  • The court said a fictitious judgment had been cited and that it does not exist.
  • No sanction was reported in the article.
  • Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
  • Feb. 17, 2026; Justice Nagarathna recalled the fake case.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-02-17
The page identifies a second UK AI hallucination case involving false authorities, but gives no named lawyer, firm, or sanction details in the excerpt.
Brightwaters Energy Limited v Eroton Exploration and Production Company LTD [2026] EWHC 296 · [D's representative] · High Court
“The reference to the 2014 case was the result of AI hallucination.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Brightwaters Energy Limited v Eroton Exploration and Production Company LTD [2026] EWHC 296
  • Second AI hallucination case mentioned on the page
  • The excerpt does not name the lawyer or firm involved
  • High Court, England and Wales
  • No sanction details are provided in the text shown
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-02-13
A pro se litigant submitted three fabricated case laws, resulting in the arguments being deemed waived.
Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus · CA Kansas · KS
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus involved a pro se litigant.
  • The AI misuse concerned fabricated case law (3).
  • The sanction was that arguments were deemed waived.
  • The court was CA Kansas in USA.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-13; the AI tool was implied.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-02-09
Counsel filed a Tax Court brief with fabricated case citations that the court said appeared to be hallucinations generated by a large language model AI.
Clinco v. Comm’r · U.S. Tax Court
“Submitting a brief with fictitious caselaw is a recipe for sanctions and a clear violation of Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
carakerlawfirm.com ↗
The file →
  • Clinco v. Comm’r involved counsel for the taxpayer in Tax Court.
  • The brief relied on mostly fabricated cases, and 3 of 4 cited cases did not exist.
  • The court did not impose a sanction in this described outcome.
  • U.S. Tax Court, federal jurisdiction.
  • Filed February 9, 2026; the article says the citations appeared to be hallucinations generated by a large language model AI.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-01-28
A protester filed a bid protest with hallucinated or unverified legal citations, and GAO dismissed the protest but declined to impose sanctions.
Bramstedt Surgical Inc. · Government Accountability Office
““close and careful attorney supervision, fact-checking, and citation-checking are absolute necessities when utilizing AI or any of its subsets.””
govconjudicata.com ↗
The file →
  • Bramstedt Surgical Inc. was the protest at issue.
  • The protest filing included citations GAO said had hallmarks of unverified AI/LLM drafting.
  • GAO dismissed the protest and declined sanctions.
  • The forum was the Government Accountability Office in federal bid protest practice.
  • GAO issued its decision on 2026-01-28 and warned that non-existent case law can lead to sanctions.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-01-21
Jones filed an appellate brief with non-existent quotations attributed to real cases, and the Seventh Circuit declined to sanction him.
Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't · Solomon Jones · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · IL
“our reaction to the quotation errors in Jones's brief.”
jhany.com ↗
The file →
  • Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't; Solomon Jones, a pro se litigant, was the subject of the court's review.
  • His appellate brief attributed quotations to cases that did not contain them.
  • The Seventh Circuit stopped short of imposing any sanction.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; federal; Illinois.
  • Jan. 21, 2026; the panel suspected AI hallucination but found no reason to believe the misstatements were knowing or intentional.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.