legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
37
Incidents tracked
10
Incidents in 2026
$99,597
In fines, where reported
3 of 37 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 24 of 37 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 10 Centient AI 1 LegalAI 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 11–20 of 37 incidents. Clear filters

Filing dismissed LegalAI 2026-06-05
The court dismissed a mandamus petition after relators filed supporting documents with nonexistent cases and fabricated quotes generated by LegalAI.
Aldridge v. Tussing · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
“The injection of false precedent undermines the integrity of the proceedings. Doing it repeatedly, and in response to a show cause order, warrants imposition of a meaningful sanction.”
apps.oregon.gov ↗
The file →
  • Aldridge v. Tussing involved relators who filed a mandamus petition with fabricated AI-generated citations and quotes.
  • The Oregon Supreme Court struck the petition and the response, then dismissed the proceeding entirely.
  • Sanction type: dismissal; no monetary amount was imposed in this order.
  • Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon; state court sanction issued on 2026-06-05.
  • The fabrications were attributed to LegalAI, and the court said repeated false precedent warranted a meaningful sanction.
Filing dismissed 2026-05-08
A lawyer filed submissions containing AI-generated, incorrect award extracts, leading the court to dismiss the variation applications.
Applications by BGIS Pty Ltd · BGIS Pty Ltd · Fair Work Commission
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Applications by BGIS Pty Ltd involved a lawyer submitting AI-generated award extracts.
  • The written submissions contained unverified extracts of modern awards.
  • The Fair Work Commission dismissed BGIS's variation applications.
  • The proceeding took place in the Fair Work Commission of Australia.
  • The decision was handed down on 8 May 2026.
Filing dismissed Centient AI 2026-04-15
A party using Centient AI filed fabricated and misrepresented case citations, and the brief was struck.
Stance Strong and Kinisha Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC d/b/a Popeyes Chicken · CA Illinois (1d) · IL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Stance Strong and Kinisha Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC d/b/a Popeyes Chicken
  • A party using Centient AI filed fabricated and misrepresented case citations.
  • The court struck the brief.
  • CA Illinois (1d), state, Illinois.
  • 2026-04-15; the AI tool is named on the page as Centient AI.
Filing dismissed 2026-03-19
The court struck the brief, awarded adverse costs, and dismissed the case with prejudice after a lawyer relied on fabricated case law.
Pittman v. Hazel and Olive, Inc. · N.D. Illinois · IL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Pittman v. Hazel and Olive, Inc. involving an unnamed lawyer
  • Lawyer cited fabricated case law in a court filing
  • Court struck the brief, issued an adverse costs order, and dismissed the case with prejudice
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
  • Sanctioned on March 19, 2026
Filing dismissed 2026-02-26
A self-represented appellant filed a brief with fabricated legal quotations and misattributed holdings; the court dismissed the appeal.
Samuel K. v. Focia · Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. · CA
“Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations – whether provided by generative AI or any other source – that the person responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Samuel K. v. Focia involved a self-represented appellant.
  • Her opening brief contained 12 legal quotations, 11 of which were fabrications.
  • The court dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
  • California Court of Appeal, state court in California.
  • February 26, 2026; the court said every citation must be personally read and verified.
Filing dismissed ChatGPT 2026-02-06
Kenosha County Judge David Hughes sanctioned DA Xavier Solis and dismissed two criminal cases after Solis filed a response containing hallucinated AI case citations.
State v. Solis · Xavier Solis · Kenosha County Circuit Court · WI
“Hughes struck Solis’ written response after finding it used AI without disclosure and relied on “hallucinated,” false legal citations.”
yahoo.com ↗
The file →
  • Kenosha County DA Xavier Solis was sanctioned by Judge David Hughes.
  • Solis filed a brief riddled with hallucinated and bogus AI-generated case citations.
  • The court sanctioned Solis and dismissed two open criminal cases.
  • The proceedings occurred in Kenosha County Circuit Court, Wisconsin.
  • The sanction occurred in February after defense attorneys flagged fake citations in a motion reply.
Filing dismissed ChatGPT 2026-02-05
Defense counsel filed a motion-to-dismiss brief with false citations, then repeated the errors after a sanctions order to show cause; the court struck the filings and entered default judgment.
Flycatcher Corp. Ltd. v. Affable Ave. LLC · Steven A. Feldman · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“Only 14 out of 60 cases were hallucinations.”

Cases that don't exist

  • 2022 WL 4637582
  • 2024 LEXIS 2847243
nysba.org ↗
The file →
  • Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue involving attorney Steven A. Feldman
  • Repeatedly submitted AI-generated fake citations and false quotes in bad faith
  • Briefs struck and default judgment entered against client
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • Decided February 5, 2026; tools used included NotebookLM, vLex, and Paxton AI
Filing dismissed 2025-12-03
The court dismissed a waste-disposal fine challenge and said the statement of claim had clearly been generated using a generative AI tool.
Tribunal administratif de Grenoble · Tribunal administratif de Grenoble
“the statement of claim had clearly been generated using a generative AI tool.”
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
  • Tribunal administratif de Grenoble, 2509827; the citizen
  • The filing was unclear and the court found it had been generated with generative AI
  • The court dismissed the application as manifestly inadmissible
  • Grenoble, France
  • 2025-12-03; municipal fine for waste disposal was challenged
Filing dismissed ChatGPT 2025-11-14
A pro se filer used AI-generated citations in a bankruptcy filing; the court sanctioned her by dismissing the case without prejudice.
In re Cathleen Siebrecht · Cathleen Siebrecht · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia · VA
““The ‘AI-generated citations’ in the filing were ‘hallucinated’ and not supported by the law.””

Cases that don't exist

  • In re Zepeda, 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 1234
  • In re Jones, 2024 WL 1234567
calawyers.org ↗
The file →
  • In re Cathleen Siebrecht involved Cathleen Siebrecht, who filed a bankruptcy paper with AI-generated citations.
  • The filing contained hallucinated legal citations and the court found they were unsupported by law.
  • The court dismissed the case without prejudice.
  • It was in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
  • The order was entered on 2025-11-14, and the page says the citations were ChatGPT-generated.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.