legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

Every incident where a lawyer got caught filing AI-fabricated citations. The Hall of Shame.

Embed this
151
Incidents tracked
26
Incidents in 2026
$542,786
In fines, where reported
50 of 151 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 60 of 151 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 151 Claude 9 CoCounsel 8 Copilot 8 Gemini 8 Lexis+ AI 6 AI-assisted legal software 4 Westlaw Precision 4 ChatGPT-4o 2 ChatOn 2 Eve 2 Google AI 2 LEAP 2 Perplexity AI 2 AI Overviews 1 Archie 1 Centient AI 1 ChatGPT-4 1 ClearBrief 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 GPT-3.5 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google Scholar 1 Grammarly 1 Grok 1 Irys 1 Legal Genius 1 LegalAI 1 MX2.law 1 OpenCase 1 Strongsuit 1 vLex Fastcase 1

Counts only incidents where the filing court or the reporting named the tool.

Hall of Shame

All Fined 53 Caught, not sanctioned 32 Warned 19 Referred to the bar 17 Reprimanded 13 Filing dismissed 10 Outcome unclear 6 Suspension 1

Showing 11–20 of 151 incidents involving ChatGPT. Clear filters

Fined $3K ChatGPT 2026-08-18
The court excluded an expert report after previously fining plaintiff's counsel $3,000 for relying on dozens of ChatGPT and Claude AI-fabricated citations.
Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. · Jocelyn Stewart · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · WA
“The court concluded that the expert’s “multiple hallucinated citations ‘shatter … his credibility with this Court.’””
nwsidebar.wsba.org ↗
The file →
  • LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. involved unnamed plaintiff's counsel.
  • Counsel used ChatGPT and Claude to build a citation table containing dozens of inaccurate citations across five filings.
  • The court fined counsel $3,000 under Rule 11 and later excluded an expert's report entirely.
  • The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma).
  • Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright excluded the expert report on August 18, 2026, following the July fine.
Outcome unclear ChatGPT
Two barristers attempted to rely on fake cases generated by ChatGPT in their submissions to the court.
Mata v Avianca 22-cv-1461(PKC)
“"Many harms flow from the submission of fake [judgments]. The opposing party wastes time and money in exposing the deception. The Court's time is taken from other important endeavors. The client may be deprived of arguments based on authentic judicial precedents. There is potential harm to the reputation of judges and courts whose names are falsely invoked as authors of the bogus opinions and to the reputation of a party attributed with fictional conduct. It promotes cynicism about the legal profession and the…judicial system. And a future litigant may be tempted to defy a judicial ruling by disingenuously claiming doubt about its authenticity."”
burges-salmon.com ↗
The file →
  • In Mata v Avianca, two barristers sought to rely on AI-generated fake cases.
  • The barristers presented fabricated case law created by ChatGPT.
  • The article does not specify a sanction type or amount.
  • The incident occurred in a US federal court, with Judge P. Kevin Castel presiding.
  • The incident date is not specified, but ChatGPT was the AI tool used, and Judge Castel emphasized the seriousness of submitting fake judgments.
Fined $2K ChatGPT
Cathleen Siebrecht filed a brief with AI-hallucinated citations and the court sanctioned her.
In re Cathleen Siebrecht · Cathleen Siebrecht · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida · FL
“I absolve the mother of any intention to mislead the court.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Johnson v. City of Detroit, 2024 WL 1234567
peaceforasia.ch ↗
The file →
  • In re Cathleen Siebrecht; attorney Cathleen Siebrecht was sanctioned.
  • She filed a brief containing AI-hallucinated citations.
  • The court imposed a $2,500 monetary fine.
  • U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; federal court in Florida.
  • Date not given on the page; the page links this as an AI hallucination case.
Fined $5K ChatGPT
Jan Tomasik and Daniel Mann filed a brief with bogus citations generated by ChatGPT, and Judge Hardy ordered them removed, referred to the Nevada bar, and fined.
Uprise · Jan Tomasik; Daniel Mann; Cozen O’Connor · Washoe County, Nev., District Court · NV
“This is larger than any of us,”
lawnext.com ↗
The file →
  • Uprise; Jan Tomasik, Daniel Mann, and Cozen O’Connor
  • They filed a brief with bogus legal references generated by ChatGPT.
  • Judge Hardy ordered removal, bar referral, and $2,500 fines each ($5,000 total), then suspended them.
  • Washoe County, Nevada, District Court in Washoe County, Nev.
  • Last May; Hardy said he wanted system improvement and redemption.
Fined $10K ChatGPT
A California attorney filed ChatGPT-generated fake case quotes and citations, and the state appeals court fined the lawyer $10,000.
California attorney sanctioned for ChatGPT-generated fake case quotes and citations · state appeals court · CA
ai.plainenglish.io ↗
The file →
  • A California attorney was sanctioned for ChatGPT-fabricated case quotes.
  • The lawyer submitted 21 of 23 quotes that ChatGPT had completely fabricated.
  • The court fined the lawyer $10,000.
  • The sanction came from a state appeals court in California.
  • The page names ChatGPT as the source of the fake citations.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A lawyer filed a brief with fabricated case law invented by ChatGPT, and the court sanctioned him after the error was uncovered.
ChatGPT Legal Case Incident
aihealthcarecompliance.com ↗
The file →
  • The page names "The ChatGPT Legal Case Incident" but gives no caption or lawyer name.
  • A lawyer submitted legal filings containing fabricated case law invented by ChatGPT.
  • The court sanctioned him after the error was uncovered.
  • No court, judge, date, or sanction amount is given on the page.
  • The page says Stanford HAI provides detailed analysis of the case.
Fined $10K ChatGPT
Two law firms faced sanctions after submitting ChatGPT-generated briefs that contained nine fabricated citations out of 27 total authorities.
ChatGPT-generated briefs
proplaintiff.ai ↗
The file →
  • Two law firms were sanctioned for ChatGPT-generated briefs.
  • Their filings contained nine fabricated citations out of 27 authorities.
  • The page says the sanction was a $10,000 wake-up call.
  • The court and judge are not named on the page.
  • The article gives the fabrication count but no citation strings.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.