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 171–180 of 251 incidents. Clear filters

Fined $1K ChatGPT 2026-02-01
A New Orleans court fined John Walker $1,000 after his LSU Health Foundation brief contained at least 11 fabricated or mischaracterized citations.
John Walker · John Walker · New Orleans · LA
““To this day it blows my mind it has that capability,””
developmentcorporate.com ↗
The file →
  • John Walker was sanctioned over an LSU Health Foundation brief.
  • The brief contained at least 11 fabricated or mischaracterized citations.
  • The court imposed a $1,000 fine.
  • New Orleans, Louisiana state court.
  • February 2026; Walker used both ChatGPT and Westlaw Precision AI.
Fined $2K 2026-01-29
Paralegal Derya Vural submitted written filings with AI-generated fake cases and laws, and was ordered to personally pay $2,000 to opposing counsel.
Andrey Ivanov & Hometrade Realty Inc. Brokerage v. Uri Kiselman & Viva Solar Inc. · Derya Vural · ON SCSM
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Andrey Ivanov v. Uri Kiselman involved paralegal Derya Vural.
  • Vural submitted citations containing AI-generated fake cases and non-existent statutory sections.
  • The court ordered Vural to personally pay $2,000 to opposing counsel in trust.
  • Decided in the Ontario Small Claims Court (Canada).
  • Decided on January 29, 2026, following a show cause opportunity.
Fined $10K 2026-01-27
Counsel filed a brief containing unverified authorities, resulting in $10,000 in monetary consequences and the brief being struck.
Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C. · Sup. Ct., Suffolk County · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C., counsel filed unverified authorities.
  • A brief was filed containing unverified legal authorities.
  • The court imposed $10,000 in monetary consequences and struck the brief.
  • The incident occurred in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, New York.
  • The decision date was January 27, 2026, and highlighted the importance of verifying submissions against reputable sources.
Fined $5K 2026-01-16
Attorney Faisal S. Ahmed was sanctioned $5,000 and referred to disciplinary authorities after filing a memo with fake and false AI-generated citations.
In the Matter of Faisal S. Ahmed · Faisal S. Ahmed · Hennepin County District Court · MN
“AI, like the advent of word processors and the Internet, can be a powerful tool to aid attorneys in their legal work, but these technological improvements should not be accepted with blind, unyielding faith or used as a substitute for legal analysis and interpretation.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Anderson v. City of Biwabik
  • Doherty v. Alma E. Clark Memorial House
alabnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Faisal S. Ahmed was sanctioned in Minnesota state court.
  • Ahmed used generative AI to research case law for a brief and filed hallucinated and distorted citations without verification.
  • The court imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction and referred the matter to state disciplinary authorities.
  • The underlying proceeding took place in Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota.
  • On January 16, 2026, the sanction and referral were ordered, leading to formal disciplinary charges filed in August 2026.
Fined $50K 2026-01-07
A self-represented litigant cited a fake 'Jyoti Tulsiani' case, and the Bombay High Court imposed adverse costs and a Bar Council warning.
Mr. Deepak s/o Shivkumar Bahry v. Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd. · Deepak Bahry · Bombay High Court · MH
“This practice of dumping documents / submissions on the court and making the court go through irrelevant or non-existing material must be deprecated and nipped in the bud.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Jyoti vs. Elegant Associates
advocateprakhar.com ↗
The file →
  • Deepak Bahry v. Heart & Soul involved a self-represented litigant.
  • He cited a fake 'Jyoti Tulsiani' case in court filings.
  • The Bombay High Court imposed adverse costs and a Bar Council warning.
  • The proceeding was in the Bombay High Court.
  • The page dates the incident to January 2026 and notes a fake cited case name.
Fined $3K 2026-01-06
A pro se plaintiff filed motions to strike with mostly hallucinated citations; the court awarded fees and dismissed the case.
Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia, P.C., et al. · Ga. Super. Ct. · GA
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia, P.C., et al. involved a pro se plaintiff.
  • Her motions to strike contained six citations, most of them AI hallucinations.
  • The court awarded $2,632 in attorneys’ fees and dismissed the case.
  • Georgia Superior Court, state court in Georgia.
  • January 6, 2026; one motion had all four cited cases as fictional AI-generated hallucinations.
Fined Archie 2025-12-19
A response brief contained four problematic citations, including one fabricated citation, and the court imposed Rule 11 sanctions and other restrictions.
Billups v. Louisville Municipal School Distr. · Watson & Norris, PLLC; Jane Watson; Louis Watson; Nick Norris · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · MS
“There's a difference between a seasoned, good lawyer and somebody who uses AI to look like one.”
forbes.com ↗
The file →
  • Billups v. Louisville Municipal School Distr. involved Watson & Norris, PLLC and attorneys Jane Watson, Louis Watson, and Nick Norris.
  • Their response brief contained one totally made-up citation and three citations that misstated holdings.
  • The court imposed sanctions including disqualification, reporting obligations, and restrictions on Watson.
  • The order came from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, dated 2025-12-19.
  • The page says Watson had used an AI tool called Archie only within the firm's litigation-support software, but also used AI elsewhere without verification.
Fined 2025-12-19
A Mississippi federal court sanctioned three attorneys for using AI in an age discrimination case, producing hallucinated citations in that case and others.
Mississippi federal age discrimination case · Jacks Griffith · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · MS
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Three attorneys at Jacks Griffith were sanctioned in a Mississippi federal age discrimination case.
  • They used artificial intelligence and got hallucinated citations in that case and other Mississippi cases.
  • The court imposed sanctions, but the article does not state an amount.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Mississippi.
  • Ordered on Friday, Dec. 19, 2025; Judge Sharion Aycock is listed on the page.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.