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 181–190 of 199 incidents. Clear filters

Caught, not sanctioned 2025-07-01
Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo sanctioned an attorney whose brief cited only one actual case after using AI-fabricated citations.
Marina Garcia Marmolejo · US District Court for the Southern District of Texas · TX
“Given that the Laredo Division is one of the busiest court dockets in the nation, there are scant resources to spare ferreting out erroneous AI citations in the first place, let alone surveying the burgeoning caselaw on this subject,”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo sanctioned an attorney in the Southern District of Texas.
  • The brief cited only one actual case, with the rest being erroneous AI citations.
  • The article gives no monetary amount, so the sanction type is not specified beyond sanctions.
  • US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Texas.
  • July 2025; the court noted the Laredo Division's heavy docket and limited resources.
Caught, not sanctioned Claude 2025-05-23
Latham filed an expert declaration with a Claude-formatted citation that fabricated the article title and authors.
Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC · Latham & Watkins · N.D. Cal. · CA
“undermines the overall credibility”
llms-for-lawyers.com ↗
The file →
  • Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC involved Latham and Watkins.
  • Claude was used to format a reference, but it fabricated the title and authors.
  • Judge Susan van Keulen struck the affected paragraph; no one was sanctioned.
  • N.D. Cal., California.
  • May 2025; the error was a single citation in an expert declaration.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-05-21
A Toronto lawyer filed AI-generated fake case citations and avoided contempt charges after the judge accepted public shaming and remedial steps.
Toronto Lawyer Avoids Contempt Charges for AI-Generated Fake Case Citations
“The judge said public shaming, as well as the fact that the lawyer took full responsibility for the errors and committed to remedial measures, was enough.”
law.com ↗
The file →
  • A Toronto lawyer faced contempt charges over AI-generated fake case citations.
  • The filing included hallucinated citations, but the court did not impose contempt.
  • Sanction type was none; the lawyer narrowly avoided sanctions.
  • Toronto, Canada; the court and judge are not named on the page.
  • May 21, 2025; the judge relied on public shaming and remedial measures.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2025-05-20
Senior lawyer Jisuh Lee showed cause over fake precedent cases in a factum, but she apologized and purged her contempt before the hearing continued.
Ko v Li · Jisuh Lee · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
“to bring home to all lawyers the need to check and not to trust factums [sic] generated by AI or by others”
claytonrice.com ↗
The file →
  • Ko v Li involved senior lawyer Jisuh Lee.
  • Her factum contained fake precedent court cases prepared using ChatGPT.
  • She purged her contempt, so no sanction was imposed.
  • Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
  • 2025-05-20; Justice F.L. Myers said lawyers must check factums generated by AI.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-05-01
Marc Gunnarsson filed tribunal submissions using an AI chatbot that invented case law, but the judge was lenient and no sanction is reported.
Marc Gunnarsson · Marc Gunnarsson · tax tribunal
jmc-legal.com ↗
The file →
  • Marc Gunnarsson in a tax tribunal dispute
  • He used an AI chatbot to prepare submissions with invented case law
  • The judge was lenient and no sanction is reported
  • Tax tribunal, England
  • May 2025; the cited fake cases were Patel v HMRC, Ali v HMRC, and Kamran v HMRC
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-04-29
Both parties in an appeal filed briefs with fabricated citations to non-existent OLG decisions, but the page does not say what sanction, if any, followed.
Oberlandesgericht Celle · Higher Regional Court of Celle
noxtua.com ↗
The file →
  • Oberlandesgericht Celle was an appeal in which both sides used fabricated case citations.
  • The briefs cited non-existent OLG decisions.
  • The page does not report any sanction imposed in this incident.
  • Court: Higher Regional Court of Celle; jurisdiction/state not given on the page.
  • Date: 2025-04-29; the page highlights professional negligence and AI-generated legal research without verification.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-04-01
Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst sanctioned a plaintiff after finding five cited cases did not exist.
Lee Dunst · US District Court for the Eastern District of New York · NY
“The AI-generated fake cases left the court with “no choice but to survey the case law regarding attorney misconduct relating to the use of AI” rather than “resolving a routine matter of civil procedure,””
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst in the Eastern District of New York imposed sanctions.
  • A plaintiff's motion cited five cases that the court found did not exist.
  • The article gives no dollar amount, only that sanctions were issued.
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, New York.
  • April 2025; the order said the court had to address AI misconduct instead of a routine civil procedure matter.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-03-20
City Attorneys took full responsibility for improper AI use that led to hallucinated case citations after receiving an order to show cause.
Case 2:25-cv-01260-CJB-EJD · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · LA
digitalcommons.law.scu.edu ↗
The file →
  • Case 2:25-cv-01260-CJB-EJD involved City Attorneys taking responsibility for AI misuse.
  • The filing says the improper use of A.I. led to hallucinated case citations.
  • No sanction amount or formal sanction is stated in the excerpt; the order to show cause is mentioned.
  • The court is the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.
  • Filed 2025-03-20; the excerpt gives no AI tool name or judge quotation.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-01-16
Two elderly litigants in person faced contempt concerns over fabricated citations, but the court declined to commit them, narrowly and reluctantly.
Olsen v Finansiel Stabilitet A/S · High Court of England and Wales
“narrowly and somewhat reluctantly”
searchthe.law ↗
The file →
  • Olsen v Finansiel Stabilitet A/S is the named case.
  • The matter involved two elderly litigants in person and fabricated citations.
  • The court did not commit them for contempt.
  • The court was the High Court.
  • Decided 16 January 2025; the article says the restraint was narrow and reluctant.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.