legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
251
Incidents tracked
81
Incidents in 2026
$1,813,310
In fines, where reported
186 of 251 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 139 of 251 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 53 Claude 4 Lexis+ AI 4 Westlaw Precision 4 CoCounsel 3 Copilot 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 Archie 1 ChatOn 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 Gemini 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google AI 1 Google Scholar 1 Grok 1 Irys 1 vLex Fastcase 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 126 Referred to the bar 98 Reprimanded 85 Outcome unclear 53 Filing dismissed 36 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1

Showing 11–20 of 251 incidents. Clear filters

Fined
Attorney Roger Roots was admonished and fined $500 per inaccurate filing for submitting a brief containing inaccurate citations and misleading characterizations of law.
Roger Roots · Roger Roots · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana · IN
“Whether these incorrect filings are the work of generative AI or counsel’s own sloppiness, the resulting errors and legal misrepresentations are glaring.”
inkfreenews.com ↗
The file →
  • Roger Roots represented Joseph Maldonado ('Joe Exotic') in an Endangered Species Act lawsuit.
  • Roots submitted court briefs containing inaccurate legal citations and misleading characterizations.
  • Chief Judge Holly A. Brady sanctioned Roots and fined him $500 for each inaccurate filing.
  • The matter was adjudicated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
  • Roots attributed the filing errors in part to a medical emergency experienced by his paralegal.
Fined $1K ChatGPT
The 10th Circuit ordered attorney Kusmin Linda Amarsingh to pay $1,000 for submitting a legal filing containing fake case citations generated by ChatGPT.
Kusmin Linda Amarsingh · Kusmin Linda Amarsingh · U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit · CO
coloradopolitics.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Kusmin Linda Amarsingh submitted fake case citations generated by artificial intelligence.
  • The attorney used unverified citations generated by ChatGPT in a legal filing.
  • The court ordered the lawyer to pay $1,000 to the opposing side as a financial penalty.
  • The sanction was ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver.
  • The three-judge panel noted that the attorney had expressed remorse for relying on the tool.
Fined
The court ordered case removal and denied all compensation to the attorney who delegated checking AI citations to staff.
Farris
nihardaily.com ↗
The file →
  • Farris involved an attorney delegating verification of AI output to staff
  • AI-fabricated citations were submitted to the court without proper verification
  • The court ordered case removal and denied all financial compensation
  • Specific court details were not provided in the text
  • The court held that verification duty cannot be delegated by the signing attorney
Fined $1K ChatGPT
Richard Bednar filed a brief with fake ChatGPT-generated citations, and the Utah Court of Appeals sanctioned him.
Richard Bednar · Richard Bednar · Utah Court of Appeals · UT
“"here is this case and it supports our position" and the case doesn’t exist.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Royer v. Nelson
  • Wadsworth v. Walmart
  • United States v. Hayes
legal.thomsonreuters.com ↗
The file →
  • Richard Bednar was sanctioned in the Utah Court of Appeals matter.
  • He submitted a brief with fake citations generated by ChatGPT.
  • He was ordered to pay fees, refund client fees, and donate $1,000.
  • Utah Court of Appeals in Utah.
  • The brief included the non-existent case Royer v. Nelson.
Fined
The court sanctioned self-represented appellants by ordering them to pay the respondent's appellate attorney fees for filing a brief with AI-hallucinated citations.
Varma v. The Bank of New York Mellon · California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two · CA
“[A]ll of those citations bear the hallmarks of fabricated legal authority created by generative artificial intelligence (AI), commonly referred to as AI hallucinations.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Varma v. The Bank of New York Mellon; self-represented appellants Rajesh and Mahima Varma (brief drafted by Trina Patterson).
  • Appellants filed an opening brief containing non-existent legal authorities and fabricated quotes created by generative AI.
  • Monetary fine sanction ordering appellants to pay the Bank of New York's appellate attorney fees (amount to be determined on remand).
  • California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (State court).
  • Decided in late August 2026; Justice Frank J. Menetrez also directed the clerk to forward the opinion to the State Bar to investigate Patterson for unauthorized practice of law.
Fined
The court denied an appeal and imposed a 2% fine for bad faith litigation after the party submitted fictitious AI-generated STJ and STF citations.
Civil Appeal no 5002055-65.2023.8.13.0074 · 4th Specialized Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais (TJMG)
jurinews.com.br ↗
The file →
  • Civil Appeal no 5002055-65.2023.8.13.0074 involved a party submitting AI-fabricated precedents.
  • The party cited fictitious rulings attributed to the STJ and STF without human review.
  • The court imposed a 2% fine on the value of the cause and issued referrals to the OAB/MG and Prosecutor's Office.
  • The decision was rendered by the 4th Specialized Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais (TJMG).
  • Appellate Judge Roberto Apolinário de Castro rejected claims of a 'technical lapse' and noted the reckless use of AI.
Fined $15K
The Third Circuit sanctioned an employee's lawyer $14,636.50 for filing a motion containing AI-generated misquotations that he failed to verify.
Hileman v. [Truncated] · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
“The disability-discrimination and medical leave laws are shields against discrimination, not get-out-of-discipline-free cards.”
legaltech.fyi ↗
The file →
  • Hileman v. [Truncated] involving an unnamed lawyer for the plaintiff
  • Filing a motion containing unverified AI-generated misquotations
  • Monetary fine sanction of $14,636.50
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  • Opinion authored by Judge Stephanos Bibas framing disability laws as shields, not discipline-free cards
Fined $8K 2026-08-28
The court ordered $8,000 in monetary sanctions and mandatory CLE after a lawyer filed briefs containing fabricated and misrepresented case law.
Erin Booker v. The Kroger Co. · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · GA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Erin Booker v. The Kroger Co. involved a lawyer who submitted fabricated and misrepresented case law.
  • Counsel submitted court filings containing fabricated and misrepresented case law from an unidentified AI tool.
  • The court imposed monetary sanctions of $8,000 and ordered CLE.
  • The matter was decided in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
  • The order imposing sanctions was issued on August 28, 2026.
Fined $1K 2026-08-27
The court admonished a lawyer and imposed a $1,000 fine for submitting filings containing fabricated case law and false quotes.
Adams v. Matrix Providers Inc. et al. · U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado · CO
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Adams v. Matrix Providers Inc. et al. involved a lawyer submitting AI-hallucinated case law and quotes.
  • The lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law and false quotes generated by AI.
  • The court issued an admonishment and a $1,000 monetary fine.
  • The case was adjudicated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
  • The order was entered on August 27, 2026.
Fined $2K 2026-08-21
A Florida state appeals court sanctioned an attorney with a $1,500 fine and bar referral for submitting briefs containing at least 46 AI-hallucinated citations.
Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association · Kenneth H. Keefe · Second District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida · FL
“Because the bulk of attorney Keefe's legal argument in the offending filings is based on hallucinated authority, it is obvious to us that generative AI was not merely attorney Keefe's 'supplemental research tool,' as he claims, but his primary or only one.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Board of Regents v. Wilson, 365 So 2d 213
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Capital Standard LLC v. US Bank; attorney Kenneth H. Keefe (Keefe Law Firm PA) sanctioned.
  • Keefe submitted court briefs replete with at least 46 hallucinated legal citations produced by generative AI.
  • Imposed a $1,500 fine, a Florida Bar referral, and ordered Keefe to pay opposing counsel's attorney fees.
  • Second District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida (Panel led by Judge Susan H. Rothstein-Youakim).
  • Keefe ignored an initial show-cause order and failed to apologize, claiming he did not know AI could produce bogus results.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.