legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
32
Incidents tracked
2
Incidents in 2026
$0
In fines, where reported
0 of 32 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 8 of 32 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 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 32 incidents involving ChatGPT. Clear filters

Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A litigant in person filed a submission using a legal phrase that looked Scottish or American, and the judge said it had the hallmarks of ChatGPT.
Reddan v An Bord Pleanála · High Court of Ireland
“This sounds like something that derived from an artificial intelligence source. It has all the hallmarks of ChatGPT, or some similar AI tool.”
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
  • Reddan v An Bord Pleanála involved a litigant in person.
  • The filing used a phrase not used in Ireland and suggested AI generation.
  • No sanction is described on the page.
  • High Court of Ireland.
  • The judge said it had the hallmarks of ChatGPT or similar AI.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A litigant in person used ChatGPT to draft an appeal submission containing fake cases, and the ruling reiterated that an unrepresented person must not mislead the court.
Barton v Wright Hassell LLP · UK Supreme Court
““an unrepresented person is still under a duty not to mislead the court””
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
  • Barton v Wright Hassell LLP involved a litigant in person.
  • He used ChatGPT to draft a submission with fake cases.
  • The page reports no sanction, only a warning principle from the ruling.
  • UK Supreme Court.
  • The ruling quoted the duty of an unrepresented person not to mislead the court.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
The Upper Tribunal held a Hamid hearing over two immigration matters involving incorrect or fake case citations that did not match the cited cases.
UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid) [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“to put client letters and decision letters from the Home Office into an open source AI tool, such as ChatGPT, is to place this information on the internet in the public domain, and thus to breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege, and thus any regulated legal professional or firm that does so would, in addition to needing to bring this to the attention of their regulator, be advised to consult with the Information Commissioner’s Office.”
gowlingwlg.com ↗
The file →
  • UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid) [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) was the latest case discussed.
  • It involved two separate instances of suspected AI-invented or otherwise incorrect case citations.
  • The article says one case looked trivial and the other serious, but the tribunal may not have actually sanctioned anyone.
  • The court was the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).
  • Published 2026-02-24; the article notes the tribunal may have been too quick to cry AI.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Plaintiffs' attorneys filed AI-generated bogus case law, and the court issued an order to show cause why they should not be sanctioned.
Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiffs' Attorneys Should Not Be Sanctioned · United States District Court for the District of Wyoming · WY
lib.law.uw.edu ↗
The file →
  • Plaintiffs' attorneys in the District of Wyoming
  • They submitted bogus case law created by ChatGPT
  • The court issued an order to show cause, with sanctions threatened
  • United States District Court for the District of Wyoming
  • 2025; the page links this to a 2025 order and names Judge Kelly H. Rankin
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Attorney Harp was ordered to produce his ChatGPT history so the court could determine whether he had submitted hallucinated AI quotations.
Attorney Harp · Attorney Harp · United States District Court, Northern District of California · CA
websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Harp was the lawyer under scrutiny.
  • The issue was whether he submitted hallucinated AI quotations to the court.
  • The court ordered him to produce his ChatGPT history.
  • United States District Court, Northern District of California.
  • No sanction amount was stated; the order was to investigate possible AI misuse.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Farah Chalisa said she used ChatGPT for stylistic and grammatical review, and the court discussed the resulting AI-related citation problem.
Salah v. Walmart Inc. · Farah Chalisa · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
media.ca7.uscourts.gov ↗
The file →
  • Salah v. Walmart Inc.; Farah Chalisa
  • Chalisa said she used ChatGPT for stylistic and grammatical review
  • The page does not state any sanction or amount for this order
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  • The page names ChatGPT and says Chalisa did not enter an appearance
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Michael Best was cited as an example of a lawyer or firm facing sanction risk for submitting AI-generated filings with fabricated citations.
Michael Best · Michael Best
lexology.com ↗
The file →
  • Michael Best was named on the page as a real incident reference.
  • The page says it involved AI-generated filings with fabricated citations.
  • No specific sanction amount or order is stated on the page.
  • No court, judge, or location is identified on the page.
  • The page links the problem to ChatGPT and fabricated legal guidance.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A Denver attorney accepted a 90-day suspension after an investigation found he used ChatGPT to help draft a motion containing fabrications.
Unnamed Colorado disciplinary case · Denver attorney · Colorado Supreme Court · CO
“like an idiot”
cronkitenews.azpbs.org ↗
The file →
  • Unnamed Colorado disciplinary case; a Denver attorney was sanctioned.
  • The attorney denied using AI, but the investigation found ChatGPT helped draft a motion with fabrications.
  • He received a 90-day suspension.
  • Colorado Supreme Court; Colorado.
  • The article gives no date beyond saying the case was recent; it quotes the attorney saying he hadn’t checked the work.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.