legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
126
Incidents tracked
50
Incidents in 2026
$4,000
In fines, where reported
1 of 126 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 74 of 126 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 20 Copilot 5 AI-assisted legal software 2 ChatGPT-4o 1 Claude 1 CoCounsel 1 Legal Genius 1 Lexis+ AI 1 Strongsuit 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 126 incidents. Clear filters

Warned Lexis+ AI 2026-08-07
Counsel filed briefs with fabricated quotations, said she used LexisNexis brief analysis for citation checking, and the court discharged the show-cause order but warned of future sanctions.
Smith v. Polk Co. · U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina · NC
“The Court is deeply troubled by the errors previously identified in the Plaintiff’s filings, and counsel’s letter does little to allay the Court’s concerns.”
ediscoveryllc.com ↗
The file →
  • Smith v. Polk Co. involved plaintiff's counsel and fabricated quotations in filings.
  • Counsel said she used LexisNexis brief analysis and denied AI research hallucinations.
  • The court discharged the show-cause order but warned similar future filings would be sanctioned.
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, North Carolina.
  • Aug. 7, 2026; the court was troubled that counsel could not explain the origin of the fabricated quotations.
Warned
An Atlanta lawyer prepared a divorce order containing bogus citations, and the Georgia Court of Appeals admonished him after a DeKalb County judge signed it.
Atlanta lawyer in a divorce matter · Atlanta lawyer · DeKalb County Superior Court · GA
ajc.com ↗
The file →
  • An Atlanta lawyer was admonished over a divorce order.
  • The order contained two bogus case citations.
  • The Georgia Court of Appeals admonished him after a DeKalb County judge signed it.
  • DeKalb County Superior Court, Georgia.
  • The article gives no sanction amount and no AI tool name.
Warned ChatGPT
A barrister misled the Tribunal by citing a fictitious Court of Appeal judgment generated by ChatGPT.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
ein.org.uk ↗
The file →
  • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) involved a barrister
  • The barrister cited a fictitious Court of Appeal judgment generated by ChatGPT
  • The Tribunal issued guidance and a stern warning
  • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), England and Wales
  • Date not given; the page says this happened after ChatGPT-generated citations misled the Tribunal
Warned
A plaintiff's lawyer filed AI-generated case references in a commercial dispute hearing, and the court issued a formal warning in its written judgment.
Beijing Tongzhou District People's Court commercial dispute hearing · Beijing Tongzhou District People's Court
aa.com.tr ↗
The file →
  • Beijing Tongzhou District People's Court commercial dispute hearing involving a plaintiff's lawyer.
  • The lawyer submitted two AI-generated case references that looked legitimate but were not real cases.
  • The court dismissed the AI-generated references and issued a formal warning.
  • Beijing Tongzhou District People's Court in Beijing, China.
  • Judge Zheng Jizhe discovered the citations; the lawyer said he had copied the AI model's generated outcomes into his filing.
Warned ChatGPT
Owoc filed a court motion with 11 AI-hallucinated citations and was sanctioned by the court.
Jack Owoc matter · Jack Owoc · California court · CA
futurism.com ↗
The file →
  • Jack Owoc was sanctioned in a California case.
  • He filed a motion with 11 AI-hallucinated citations to nonexistent cases.
  • The court ordered 10 hours of community service and future AI disclosure.
  • California court; state jurisdiction; location not further specified on the page.
  • The article says he admitted using generative AI and the sanction was for hallucinated citations.
Warned ChatGPT
An immigration barrister cited entirely fictitious or irrelevant cases in appeal grounds and the Upper Tribunal judge said he had likely used generative AI and tried to hide it.
Chowdhury Rahman · Chowdhury Rahman · Upper Tribunal
“The most obvious explanation is … that the grounds of appeal were drafted in whole or in part by generative artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT.”
theguardian.com ↗
The file →
  • Chowdhury Rahman was the immigration barrister in the Upper Tribunal case.
  • He cited cases that were described as entirely fictitious or wholly irrelevant.
  • The judge said Rahman likely used generative AI and considered reporting him to the Bar Standards Board.
  • Court: Upper Tribunal in the UK; the ruling was published on Tuesday.
  • Judge Mark Blundell ruled in September and said the submissions wasted the tribunal’s time.
Warned ChatGPT
A U.S. lawyer used ChatGPT to draft filings and cited fake cases; a federal judge responded with a standing order on AI use.
ChatGPT references nonexistent legal cases · A U.S. lawyer · federal judge
evidentlyai.com ↗
The file →
  • A U.S. lawyer in the ChatGPT case
  • He used ChatGPT and ended up citing entirely fake legal cases
  • The judge issued a standing order, not a monetary penalty
  • Federal court; the page gives no judge name or location
  • The page says the lawyer did not realize ChatGPT was a generative language tool
Warned
A lawyer cited a non-existent case in submissions, and the Board disregarded the hallucinated citation and reminded the applicant that false citations are serious.
Monster Energy Company v Pacific Smoke International Inc. · Trademarks Opposition Board
“This citation appears to be an AI “hallucination,” as discussed in paragraph 5 of Diseño Textil.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Hennes & Mauritz AB v M & S Meat Shops Inc, 2012 TMOB 7
clia.ca ↗
The file →
  • Monster Energy Company v Pacific Smoke International Inc. involved a lawyer citing a case that did not exist.
  • The Board called the citation an AI hallucination and disregarded it.
  • The outcome was a warning, not a monetary sanction.
  • Trademarks Opposition Board, Canada.
  • 2024 TMOB 211; the Board cited Zhang v Chen and Diseño Textil.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.