legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
17
Incidents tracked
0
Incidents in 2026
$100,000
In fines, where reported
1 of 17 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 10 of 17 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 17 Claude 2 CoCounsel 2 LEAP 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 ChatGPT-4 1 Copilot 1 GPT-3.5 1 Gemini 1 Legal Genius 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 11–17 of 17 incidents involving ChatGPT. Clear filters

Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-08-12
A barrister filed ChatGPT-drafted grounds with a fictitious Court of Appeal authority and was found to have attempted to mislead the tribunal and referred to the BSB.
MS (Bangladesh) · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“attempted to mislead”
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • MS (professional conduct: AI generated documents) is the named matter.
  • ChatGPT-drafted grounds cited a fictitious Court of Appeal authority.
  • The barrister was referred to the Bar Standards Board.
  • The court was the Upper Tribunal (IAC).
  • Promulgated 12 August 2025; the barrister produced further unverified AI output after a short adjournment.
Referred to the bar $100K ChatGPT 2025-07-23
Attorneys submitted five ChatGPT-fabricated citations in discovery motions, resulting in public reprimand, disqualification from the case, and state bar referral.
Frankie Johnson v. Jefferson S. Dunn et al. · William Cranford, Matthew Reeves, and William Lunsford · United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · AL
“"failing to prevent AI hallucinations in legal filings"”
dailyjournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Johnson v. Dunn involved attorneys William Cranford, Matthew Reeves, and William Lunsford.
  • Reeves inserted 5 fabricated citations generated by ChatGPT into two discovery motions without verifying them.
  • The court ordered a public reprimand, disqualification from the case, and referral to the state bar.
  • The case was decided in the Northern District of Alabama.
  • The sanction order was issued on July 23, 2025, finding the conduct tantamount to subjective bad faith.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-06-06
The claimant's solicitor relied on 45 client-provided case citations, 18 fictitious, and the court referred him to the SRA.
Al-Haroun v. Qatar National Bank · Abid Hussain; Primus Solicitors · High Court of Justice, Divisional Court
“a matter of the utmost seriousness”
global.lockton.com ↗
The file →
  • Hamad Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC and QNB Capital LLC; Abid Hussain of Primus Solicitors
  • Witness statements contained eighteen non-existent case authorities and misquoted genuine ones
  • The court did not initiate contempt proceedings and said referral to the regulator was more appropriate
  • Divisional Court, UK; the article says the decision was published on 6 June 2025
  • Dias J called it "a matter of the utmost seriousness" and said counsel failed to check the information provided by the client
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-03-31
The court found seven of nine cited authorities were non-existent, apparently AI-generated, refused leave to appeal, and referred the matter to the Legal Practice Council.
Mavundla v MEC Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs KwaZulu-Natal and Others · Pietermaritzburg High Court · South Africa
“irresponsible and downright unprofessional”
legal500.com ↗
The file →
  • Mavundla v MEC: Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs KwaZulu-Natal and Others
  • Seven of nine authorities in the applicant’s submissions were found to be entirely non-existent, apparently generated by AI.
  • The court refused leave to appeal and referred the matter to the Legal Practice Council.
  • Pietermaritzburg High Court, South Africa.
  • Judge Bezuidenhout; the article says this was the clearest African example of AI hallucinations contaminating filings.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-01-31
A lawyer filed submissions with false citations and quotes generated by ChatGPT, and Judge Skaros referred the conduct to the regulatory body.
Valu v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
“The conduct of the ALR, in filing an application and submissions which contained citations to Federal Court of Australia cases which do not exist and alleged quotes from the Tribunal’s decision which do not exist, falls short of the standard of competence and diligence that the applicant in the substantive proceedings was entitled to expect from his legal representative.”
lawsociety.ie ↗
The file →
  • Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) involved a lawyer referred to the regulatory body.
  • The filings contained false citations and quotes generated using ChatGPT.
  • Judge Skaros referred the lawyer's conduct for consideration.
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).
  • 2025-01-31; the conduct also involved correspondence with the Court without the consent of the other parties.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-01-01
A barrister cited a false case generated by ChatGPT and the Upper Tribunal referred the barrister to the BSB after the citation was not checked.
MS (Bangladesh) (Professional Conduct: AI Generated Documents) · Upper Tribunal
5essex.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • MS (Bangladesh) (Professional Conduct: AI Generated Documents) involved a barrister.
  • The barrister cited a false case generated by ChatGPT and failed to check its authenticity.
  • The Upper Tribunal referred the barrister to the BSB.
  • Upper Tribunal, location not stated on the page.
  • The article says the tribunal applied Ayinde guidance and the false citation came from ChatGPT.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2024-01-30
The Second Circuit referred attorney Jae S. Lee to its grievance panel after he cited a ChatGPT-generated non-existent case in a reply brief.
Park v. Kim · Jae S. Lee · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · NY
“well below the basic obligations of counsel”
llms-for-lawyers.com ↗
The file →
  • Park v. Kim involved Jae S. Lee of JSL Law Offices.
  • She cited a non-existent case in a reply brief and admitted ChatGPT use.
  • The Second Circuit referred her to its Grievance Panel.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  • January 30, 2024; the panel said her conduct was well below the basic obligations of counsel.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.