legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
98
Incidents tracked
30
Incidents in 2026
$386,941
In fines, where reported
14 of 98 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 57 of 98 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

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 98 incidents. Clear filters

Referred to the bar
Nevada attorneys were caught citing 14 fabricated cases and were referred to the state bar and ordered to write explanatory letters to law school deans.
In re Nevada attorneys · NV
jenkinslaw.org ↗
The file →
  • Attorneys in Nevada were referred to the state bar after using fabricated citations.
  • The page says they were also directed to write explanatory letters to their law school deans.
  • The sanction type is referral; no dollar amount is stated.
  • The court is not named on the page; Nevada is the only location given.
  • The page mentions 14 fabricated cases but names no AI tool.
Referred to the bar
Lawyers faced disciplinary proceedings after filing an AI-generated brief containing nearly 30 defective citations, misquotes, and non-existent cases.
MyPillow litigation · Lawyers in the MyPillow litigation
corporatecounselnow.com ↗
The file →
  • The MyPillow litigation involved lawyers facing disciplinary proceedings.
  • They filed an AI-generated brief with nearly 30 defective citations, misquotes, and non-existent cases.
  • The page reports disciplinary proceedings, not a completed monetary sanction.
  • No court, judge, or exact date is named on the page.
  • The article says the brief was AI-generated but does not name the tool.
Referred to the bar
A New York Commercial Division decision in Jennie imposed fees and disciplinary referrals after lawyers failed to proofread AI-assisted filings containing fabricated cases or misquoted authorities.
Jennie · New York Commercial Division · NY
insidetechlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Jennie was a New York Commercial Division incident mentioned by the page.
  • Lawyers submitted AI-assisted filings with fabricated cases or misquoted legal authorities.
  • The court imposed fees and disciplinary referrals.
  • The court was the New York Commercial Division in New York.
  • The page says recent decisions imposed fees and even disciplinary referrals after lawyers failed to proofread AI-assisted filings.
Referred to the bar $10K
A King’s Counsel, junior counsel and their instructing solicitor were referred to disciplinary bodies after AI hallucinations appeared in their court submissions.
Emma McGrath-Cohen article incident · A King’s Counsel, his junior counsel and their instructing solicitor · state legal professional disciplinary bodies
afr.com ↗
The file →
  • A King’s Counsel, junior counsel and their instructing solicitor were referred to disciplinary bodies.
  • AI hallucinations were found in their court submissions.
  • The instructing solicitor was ordered to pay $10,000 in costs.
  • They were referred to state legal professional disciplinary bodies.
  • The article says they did not adequately explain how the errors occurred.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT
A lawyer was referred to a disciplinary regulator after filing two documents that relied on non-existent citations and quotes.
ChatGPT blunder sees lawyer referred to regulator · Disciplinary regulator
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer was referred to a disciplinary regulator.
  • The page says two filed documents relied on non-existent citations and quotes.
  • The sanction was referral; no amount is stated.
  • The article names ChatGPT as the AI tool.
  • Published Dec. 31, 2025; the page gives no case caption or judge quote.
Referred to the bar
A South Australian solicitor and two Victoria-based counsel were referred to regulators for relying on AI-prepared material.
Solicitor, 2 counsel referred to regulator for AI use · A South Australian solicitor and two Victoria-based counsel · Respective legal regulators
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
  • A solicitor and two counsel were referred to regulators.
  • The page says they relied on material prepared by AI.
  • The sanction was referral to their respective legal regulators.
  • The page identifies South Australia and Victoria.
  • Published Dec. 31, 2025; no AI tool or judge quote is stated.
Referred to the bar
A barrister cited the fabricated case 'Y (China)' in an immigration appeal, and the Upper Tribunal referred him to the Bar Standards Board.
MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKUT 305 (IAC) · Upper Tribunal
“null”
theaccessgroup.com ↗
The file →
  • MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a barrister.
  • He cited the fabricated case 'Y (China)' during an immigration appeal.
  • The Upper Tribunal referred him to the Bar Standards Board.
  • The court was the Upper Tribunal (IAC).
  • The page says he doubled down by producing an internet printout with misleading statements.
Referred to the bar
Counsel for Father filed an appellate brief with hallucinated case citations and quotations, and the Arizona Court of Appeals referred the matter to the State Bar of Arizona.
Washburn v. Houston · counsel for Father · Arizona Court of Appeals · AZ
heyannette.com ↗
The file →
  • Washburn v. Houston involved counsel for Father.
  • The appellate brief contained hallucinated case citations and quotations.
  • The court referred the matter to the State Bar of Arizona.
  • Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona.
  • January 5, 2026; the court said counsel had a nondelegable duty of candor.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT
Two judicial review applications contained false case citations generated by non-specialist AI tools, and the Tribunal warned that supervisors and signatories risk referral.
R (on the application of Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“Legal professionals are obliged to ensure that legal arguments which are presented to the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal are factually and legally accurate.”
ein.org.uk ↗
The file →
  • R (on the application of Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved two judicial review applications.
  • The grounds and supporting material contained false and non-existent case citations from AI drafting.
  • The Tribunal warned failures to check work are likely to result in referral to the SRA or another regulator.
  • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), UK.
  • Published 2026-02-20; the page says ChatGPT was one open-source AI tool discussed.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.