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 161–170 of 199 incidents. Clear filters

Caught, not sanctioned Gemini 2025-12-04
The court declined to transfer the case and noted that counsel had cited AI-generated authorities, but no sanction order is described on the page.
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation · N.D. Ga. · GA
copyrightalliance.org ↗
The file →
  • In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation; counsel
  • The page says counsel cited AI-generated authorities in the case
  • No sanction order is described on the page
  • N.D. Ga. in federal court, Georgia
  • 2025-12-04; the page mentions Gemini among AI tools
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-11-18
A tribunal rejected fraud claims after a lawyer cited a non-existent statute fabricated by AI.
Small Moves Canada Inc. v. Garner · BC CRT
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Small Moves Canada Inc. v. Garner involved an unnamed attorney.
  • The lawyer cited the non-existent 'British Columbia Fraudulent Transactions Act'.
  • The tribunal declined to consider or add fraud claims based on the fake statute.
  • Decided by the Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia, Canada.
  • Issued November 18, 2025; implied AI hallucination.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-11-13
A law firm inadvertently filed a brief with two AI-generated fake citations, then promptly acknowledged the error and took remedial actions that satisfied the court.
Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Peacock · Buchalter · U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · OR
“one cited case was “totally fake” and another was “almost real” because there is a case with the name, but it is a state case instead of a federal case as indicated.”
reuters.com ↗
The file →
  • Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Peacock; a law firm was involved
  • The firm filed a brief containing two AI-generated fake citations
  • The court did not impose sanctions after the firm acknowledged the mistake and remedied it
  • U.S. District Court for Oregon
  • Nov. 12, 2025; the court found the firm’s forthright response sufficient
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2025-11-10
Cal State filed a brief with faulty quotes and phantom quotations that an administrative law judge struck from the record.
California State University brief striking order · California State University · California Public Employment Relations Board · CA
“while “there is no proof that AI was, in fact the author” of a Cal State brief, the document “bears all the hallmarks of the hallucinations associated with AI-generated texts” and contains a series of misquotes Cal State failed to explain.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Marshall v. Regis Educational Corporation
laist.com ↗
The file →
  • California State University was the party whose brief was struck.
  • The brief contained faulty quotes and phantom quotations from a 1981 decision.
  • Administrative Law Judge Bernhard Rohrbacher ordered the filing struck from the record.
  • The matter was before the California Public Employment Relations Board in California.
  • CSU later acknowledged the brief had been written with AI assistance.
Caught, not sanctioned AI Overviews 2025-11-04
A lawyer filed material using Google AI Overview that contained fabricated and misrepresented case law, and the court dealt with the AI misuse without listing a sanction.
Choksi v IPS · High Court
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Choksi v IPS involved a lawyer's AI-assisted filing.
  • Google AI Overview was the named source of the fabrications.
  • The entry lists fabricated and misrepresented case law but no sanction.
  • High Court, UK.
  • 4 November 2025; the page names Google AI Overview as the tool.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-10-15
A self-represented party filed a brief with nonexistent or misstated cases, and the court denied costs because the brief was of no use.
T.B. v. K.M. · Saskatchewan family law division

Cases that don't exist

  • A.M. v. C.H., 2019 SKQB 162
  • Baker v. Baker, 2007 ONCA 329
  • R.C. v. R.C., 2013 NSC 71

+1 more

grllp.com ↗
The file →
  • T.B. v. K.M. involved K.M.'s filed brief with fake or misstated cases.
  • The court found the cited authorities did not exist or were misrepresented.
  • The court refused to award K.M. costs, effectively penalizing the misuse.
  • Saskatchewan family law division, Saskatchewan.
  • October 15, 2025; the judge said K.M. was responsible for ensuring the cases existed.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-10-09
A Massachusetts attorney filed a brief with faulty GAI-generated content, and the court order on the defendant’s supplemental motion addressed the filing.
Commonwealth v. Moraes · Middlesex Superior Court · MA
bostonbar.org ↗
The file →
  • Commonwealth v. Moraes involved a Massachusetts attorney.
  • The brief included faulty GAI-generated content.
  • The page does not state any sanction was imposed.
  • Middlesex Superior Court, Massachusetts.
  • October 9, 2025; the article cites a memorandum and order on the defendant’s supplemental combined motion to dismiss.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2025-09-30
Jisuh Lee filed a factum with ChatGPT-generated fake cases and later admitted she misled the court about who prepared it; the court treated it as criminal contempt.
Ko v. Li · Jisuh Lee · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
““Delivering a factum containing non-existent legal submissions creates a serious risk of a miscarriage of justice.””
benmor.com ↗
The file →
  • Ko v. Li involved lawyer Jisuh Lee and a factum with fabricated authorities.
  • The article says she used ChatGPT and failed to verify the citations.
  • The court treated the matter as criminal contempt, with no sanction yet imposed on this page.
  • Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada.
  • On 2025-09-30, Lee admitted she alone used ChatGPT and had lied about staff involvement.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-09-25
A petition was withdrawn after opposing counsel exposed fabricated citations that invented paragraphs from Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi.
Greenopolis Welfare Association (GWA) v. Narender Singh et al. · Delhi High Court · DL

Cases that don't exist

  • Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi
medianama.com ↗
The file →
  • Greenopolis Welfare Association v. Narender Singh was a flat-possession dispute.
  • The petition quoted invented paragraphs from a landmark judgment.
  • The petition was withdrawn after the fabricated citations were exposed.
  • Delhi High Court, Delhi.
  • September 2025; it quoted paragraphs 73 and 74 from a 27-paragraph judgment.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.