legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
199
Incidents tracked
40
Incidents in 2026
$11,578
In fines, where reported
3 of 199 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 75 of 199 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 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 199 incidents. Clear filters

Caught, not sanctioned
A judge in Mississippi declined to impose new sanctions for separate AI flubs in a case, finding that sanctions imposed last year in a different case were sufficient punishment.
Lewis v. Entergy Mississippi, LLC · Mississippi Southern · MS
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • In Lewis v. Entergy Mississippi, LLC, a Mississippi federal judge addressed AI citation issues.
  • The court considered AI flubs in a new case.
  • The judge declined new sanctions, finding prior sanctions for similar AI misuse sufficient.
  • This incident occurred in the Mississippi Southern federal court.
  • The incident date is not specified, but the judge's decision noted prior sanctions from last year, implying a recent decision.
Caught, not sanctioned
Former Irish Independent journalist and activist Gemma O’Doherty cited legal authorities that "simply did not exist" in the Court of Appeal, but the court did not believe she intended to mislead.
Gemma O’Doherty · Gemma O’Doherty · Court of Appeal
irishtimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Gemma O’Doherty cited non-existent legal authorities.
  • She used AI to generate legal arguments.
  • No sanction was imposed as the court did not believe she intended to mislead.
  • Court of Appeal
  • March: The court noted the non-existent citations, and that no guidance was available for self-representing litigants.
Caught, not sanctioned
The Supreme Court set aside a ruling after the lower court relied on quotations from prior decisions that were verified and found not to exist.
Irma del Socorro Chadid Urueta v Civil, Family and Labour Division of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Sincelejo (STC17832-2025) · Supreme Court of Justice
cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com ↗
The file →
  • Irma del Socorro Chadid Urueta v Civil, Family and Labour Division of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Sincelejo (STC17832-2025) was cited as a foreign example.
  • The lower court relied on quotations from prior decisions that did not exist.
  • The Supreme Court of Justice set aside the ruling and ordered dissemination of the event to the judiciary.
  • The page says there were no apparent consequences for the judges beyond that dissemination order.
  • The article could not determine whether the erroneous quotations came from the parties or the judges.
Caught, not sanctioned
The trial court order in Payne v State contained several AI-generated citations that did not exist or did not support the arguments, and the Georgia Supreme Court vacated it.
Payne v State · Supreme Court of Georgia · GA
“The state justices urged trial judges to examine proposed court orders “with the understanding that artificial intelligence software, with all of its potential risks and benefits, may have been used”.”
thedailystar.net ↗
The file →
  • Payne v State involved a trial court order with bogus citations.
  • The order contained several legal citations that did not exist or did not support the arguments.
  • The Georgia Supreme Court vacated the order; no lawyer sanction amount was stated.
  • Supreme Court of Georgia; Georgia state court.
  • The page says the draft was prepared by the prosecutor with the aid of AI tools.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-08-07
The court imposed no sanctions on an attorney whose filing contained a false case quote generated by implied AI use.
Brown v. Real Estate Capital of America et al. · SC New York · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Brown v. Real Estate Capital of America et al. involved an unnamed lawyer.
  • The lawyer submitted a filing containing 1 false quote from case law.
  • The court imposed no sanctions.
  • New York State Supreme Court.
  • Order issued August 7, 2026; AI use was implied.
Caught, not sanctioned
A federal judge cancelled a trial and removed all four attorneys after both sides filed briefs citing AI-fabricated case law.
Mississippi Trial Cancelled Over Dual-Counsel AI Hallucinations · MS
github.com ↗
The file →
  • Mississippi Trial Cancelled Over Dual-Counsel AI Hallucinations
  • Both plaintiff and defense counsel filed briefs citing AI-fabricated case law.
  • The judge cancelled the trial and removed all four attorneys.
  • The page identifies this as a federal case in Mississippi.
  • The page says it was the first simultaneous sanction of opposing counsel for the same AI misuse.
Caught, not sanctioned
Judge P. Kevin Castel ordered the firm's attorneys to write apology letters to judges falsely named as authors of fake AI-generated cases.
Levidow, Levidow & Oberman attorneys · Levidow, Levidow & Oberman · federal court in New York · NY
findlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorneys of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman were ordered to respond to AI-fabricated citations.
  • The filing involved fake cases generated by AI that falsely named judges as authors.
  • The court ordered apology letters, not a monetary sanction.
  • Federal court in New York; Judge P. Kevin Castel.
  • The order required letters to each judge falsely identified as the author of a fake case.
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.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.