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 181–190 of 251 incidents. Clear filters

Fined $77K Gemini 2025-12-18
MIO Legal Consultants LLP filed a defence with AI-fabricated and unsupported case citations, and the court ordered indemnity costs.
Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam [2025] ADGMCFI 0032 · MIO Legal Consultants LLP · Abu Dhabi Global Market Court of First Instance
““The fault for reliance on AI hallucinations as factually accurate lies not with the research programme,  but with the person responsible for conducting the search.””
theaskconsultancy.com ↗
The file →
  • Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam [2025] ADGMCFI 0032 involved MIO Legal Consultants LLP.
  • The firm filed a 327-paragraph defence containing cases that did not exist or did not support the propositions cited.
  • The court ordered AED 282,508 in indemnity costs, about USD 77,039.
  • The order was issued by the Abu Dhabi Global Market Court of First Instance in Abu Dhabi.
  • On 2025-12-18, Justice Paul Heath KC said the fault lay with the person responsible for the search, not the AI.
Fined $6K 2025-12-16
Blackburn filed a response brief with hallucinated AI-generated case law; Judge Leo Gordon fined him and ordered bar notifications.
Liza Gardner v. Sean "Diddy" Combs · Tyrone Blackburn · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“"Mr. Blackburn confirmed that he indeed used AI that provided him with hallucinated case law and propositions that he then incorporated into his response brief and that he failed to verify on subsequent review," Judge Gordon wrote.”
billboard.com ↗
The file →
  • Liza Gardner v. Sean "Diddy" Combs; attorney Tyrone Blackburn was sanctioned.
  • He used AI and cited hallucinated case law in a response brief.
  • Judge Gordon imposed a $6,000 fine and required bar notifications.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  • Dec. 16 ruling; Blackburn admitted the AI mistakes and the case "Masha" did not exist.
Fined $3K ChatGPT 2025-12-12
Co-counsel Celeste Boyd used ChatGPT to draft and edit portions of briefs in an OnlyFans-related case and was sanctioned $3,000 for failing to verify them.
Celeste Boyd · Celeste Boyd · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“The judge additionally imposed a $3,000 sanction on co-counsel Celeste Boyd, who he said used ChatGPT to draft and edit portions of the briefs but failed to verify the material, Reuters also reports.”
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Celeste Boyd was sanctioned as co-counsel in the OnlyFans case.
  • She used ChatGPT to draft and edit portions of briefs that contained hallucinated material.
  • The court imposed a $3,000 sanction on Boyd.
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; Judge Fred Slaughter; California.
  • The article says she failed to verify the material before filing.
Fined $60K ChatGPT 2025-12-05
An Illinois circuit court sanctioned a law firm $50,000 and an individual attorney another $10,000 for including false case citations and quotations in post-trial submissions, which the court characterized as a “serious failure” of the attorneys’ obligation to present truthful, accurate information.
Jordan v. Chi. Hous. Auth., No. 2022 L 000095 · Chicago Housing Authority's counsel · Cook County Circuit Court · IL
“The Court further emphasized its focus was “not on the misuse of artificial intelligence to conduct unreliable legal research and drafting,” but “the inexcusable submission of false authority and factual arguments to the Court, the subsequent misrepresentations about the extent of the improper conduct, and the failure to take prompt responsibility for errors once discovered.””

Cases that don't exist

  • Mack v. Anderson
klemchuk.com ↗
The file →
  • A law firm and an individual attorney were sanctioned in Jordan v. Chi. Hous. Auth.
  • They included 14 instances of non-existent quotes and fabricated holdings in post-trial submissions, generated using AI.
  • The sanction was a monetary fine totaling $60,000 ($50,000 for the firm and $10,000 for the attorney).
  • The sanction was issued by an Illinois Circuit Court.
  • The incident date was December 5, 2025, and the court emphasized that the obligations of officials of the court precede electronic research and artificial intelligence.
Fined $2K 2025-12-03
Gabriel A. Watson filed appellate briefs with two made-up cases and a fabricated quote, and the Oregon Court of Appeals fined him $2,000.
Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC · Gabriel A. Watson · Oregon Court of Appeals · OR
“We also recognize that it has become common to refer to cases and principles fabricated by artificial intelligence as ‘hallucinations.’ We reject that terminology because it obscures both the nature and the seriousness of the situation we face. … [G]enerative artificial intelligence is not perceiving nonexistent law as the result of a disorder. Rather, it is generating nonexistent law in accordance with its design.”
oregonlive.com ↗
The file →
  • Gabriel A. Watson was sanctioned in the Cohoon/Ringo appeal.
  • He filed briefs citing two made-up cases and a fabricated quote from real case law.
  • The Oregon Court of Appeals imposed a $2,000 fine.
  • The sanction came from the Oregon Court of Appeals in Oregon.
  • Dec. 3, 2025; Chief Judge Erin Lagesen called it a "very grave situation".
Fined $8K 2025-12-01
Counsel submitted a brief with fabricated quotes and case law citations, leading the court to strike the brief, impose a $7,500 fine, and refer counsel to the State Bar.
Peiman Shayan v. Ebby Shakib · Fahim Farivar · California Court of Appeal, Division One · CA
“It is undisputed that appellant’s attorney, Fahiin Farivar, filed a brief containing numerous fabricated quotations—that is, language falsely attributed to published decisions.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Peiman Shayan v. Ebby Shakib involving attorney Farivar.
  • Attorney filed an opening brief containing fabricated quotes and fake case law citations.
  • The court struck the brief, ordered a corrected filing, imposed a $7,500 fine, and referred counsel to the Bar.
  • California Court of Appeal (CA California).
  • Decided December 1, 2025; court noted attorney refused to accept responsibility, calling them mere clerical errors.
Fined 2025-12-01
Counsel filed a brief reproducing a fake precedent and incomplete case number, resulting in a fine and a bar referral.
José Carlos Pinto de Faria v. Prevent TWB do Brasil et al. · TJ San Paulo
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • José Carlos Pinto de Faria v. Prevent TWB do Brasil et al. involving counsel for agravante.
  • Counsel reproduced a fabricated precedent from an AI tool with an incomplete case number.
  • Court ruled it bad-faith litigation, imposing a 2% fine of the cause's value and referring counsel to OAB/SP.
  • TJ San Paulo (Brazil).
  • Decided December 1, 2025.
Fined $5K 2025-11-25
Lucas used AI to draft an opening brief without verifying citations, and the Court of Appeal imposed a $5,000 sanction.
County of Los Angeles v. Niblett · Robert W. Lucas · California Court of Appeal, Division One · CA
“It…appears Attorney Lucas used artificial intelligence to prepare the opening brief, filed the brief without verifying the accuracy of the case authority it discusses, and failed to correct his mis citation of cases appearing in the opening brief despite the County’s appellate brief noting these errors.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
  • County of Los Angeles v. Niblett; Robert W. Lucas
  • He admitted he misused artificial intelligence in the opening brief
  • Court of Appeal imposed a $5,000 sanction
  • California Court of Appeal, Division One
  • Nov. 25, 2025; Bendix said Lucas showed troubling disregard for duties as an officer of the court
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.