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 ClearBrief 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 125 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 56 Filing dismissed 37 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1

Showing 191–200 of 251 incidents. Clear filters

Fined $1K 2025-11-21
A lawyer submitted fabricated case citations, resulting in monetary sanctions, CLE requirements, and a state bar referral.
Nuvola, LLC v. Wright · Minnesota DC · MN
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Nuvola, LLC v. Wright involved an unnamed attorney submitting AI-fabricated case law.
  • The court found the lawyer relied on fabricated legal citations in court filings.
  • Sanctions included a $1,000 fine, five CLE presentation requirements, and a Bar referral.
  • Heard in the Minnesota District Court.
  • Order issued on November 21, 2025, using an unidentified AI tool.
Fined 2025-11-20
Gordon & Thompson filed an amended particulars of claim with two fake AI-generated authorities; the court made a wasted costs order and declined a separate referral of solicitor Raphael Newton to the SRA.
Ndaryiyumvire v Brimingham City University · Gordon & Thompson · Birmingham County Court
““In my judgement, from the evidence that I have heard, it was not Mr Newton that placed false material before the court, it was administrative staff at his firm.””
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Ndaryiyumvire v Brimingham City University involved Gordon & Thompson and solicitor Raphael Newton.
  • An amended claim was filed with two fake cases generated by AI and later withdrawn.
  • The court made a wasted costs order against Gordon & Thompson and did not make a separate SRA referral of Newton.
  • Birmingham County Court, Birmingham.
  • 20 November 2025; the judge said the failure was in substance a failure of management at the firm.
Fined $3K 2025-11-19
Pro se defendant Paul Kimmel filed briefs with dozens of fake or misrepresented citations, and Chief Judge Hala Jarbou imposed Rule 11 sanctions.
Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Kimmel · Paul Kimmel · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan · MI
“The Court finds this response inadequate and not credible,”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Kimmel; Paul Kimmel was sanctioned.
  • He submitted filings with dozens of misrepresented or fake cases and citations.
  • The court imposed a $2,900 monetary fine under Rule 11.
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
  • Nov. 19, 2025 order by Chief Judge Hala Jarbou; the court said it need not decide whether AI was actually used.
Fined ChatGPT 2025-11-19
A lawyer was sanctioned with a 500 CAD penalty and denied identity anonymization after filing a ChatGPT-fabricated case citation.
Yuehong v. The Minister of Citizenship & Immigration · Federal Court
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Yuehong v. Minister of Citizenship & Immigration involved an unnamed counsel in Canada.
  • Counsel submitted a brief containing a fabricated case citation from ChatGPT.
  • Ordered to pay a monetary sanction of 500 CAD; court refused to anonymize lawyer's name.
  • Decided in the Federal Court of Canada.
  • Issued November 19, 2025, naming ChatGPT explicitly as the source.
Fined $10K 2025-11-18
A lawyer was publicly admonished and ordered to pay $10,000 in costs for submitting three fabricated case citations.
Medical Buyers Group LLC d/b/a Integrity v. Candice Pence, et al. · M.D. Georgia · GA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Medical Buyers Group LLC v. Pence involved an unnamed attorney.
  • The attorney submitted 3 fabricated cases and 1 misrepresented case.
  • Court issued a public admonishment and ordered $10,000 in costs to opposing counsel.
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
  • Order issued November 18, 2025; implied AI hallucination.
Fined $2K 2025-11-17
Grotke filed a supersedeas petition and opening brief with fabricated legal citations, and the court sanctioned him $1,750.
Schlicter v. Kennedy · California Court of Appeal, Division 2, Fourth Appellate District · CA
“Grotke's spurious citations bear the hallmarks of hallucinated citations produced by generative AI.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Schlichter v. Kennedy; attorney Jeffrey Dean Grotke was sanctioned.
  • He filed a petition and opening brief with fabricated citations generated at least in part using AI.
  • The court imposed a $1,750 sanction payable to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
  • California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, in California.
  • Filed Monday; the order said the citations bore hallmarks of hallucinated citations produced by generative AI.
Fined $500 Descrybe.ai 2025-11-17
Attorney Stich was ordered to pay a $500 monetary sanction for submitting three hallucinated case citations against a pro se opponent.
Cojom v. Roblen LLC · David P. Stich · U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · CT
“The court understands that, in issuing this order, it does so in a proverbial new frontier as society begins to grapple with both the power and potential danger of this technology,” Hall wrote at the time.”
courant.com ↗
The file →
  • Cojom v. Roblen involved attorney Stich.
  • Attorney Stich submitted 3 hallucinated case citations against a pro se opponent.
  • The court imposed a $500 monetary sanction on the lawyer.
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
  • Issued November 17, 2025; court noted AI imperils judicial integrity.
Fined $2K 2025-11-05
Attorney LeRoy George Siddell filed an opposition with a fake quote and a fabricated citation in a criminal case, and the court sanctioned him $1,500.
People v. Alvarez · LeRoy George Siddell · California Court of Appeal, Division 1, Fourth Appellate District · CA
“The conduct here is not as egregious as what occurred in Noland.”
lanak-hanna.com ↗
The file →
  • In People v. Alvarez, an attorney was sanctioned for filing a brief with fabricated and misquoted authority.
  • The attorney submitted court filings containing fabricated AI authority.
  • The court sanctioned the attorney $1,500 and notified the State Bar.
  • The case was decided in the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.
  • Decided three weeks after Noland v. Land of the Free in 2025.
Fined $5K 2025-11-04
A declaration with fabricated deposition quotations and citations was filed, and Judge Carlton Reeves ordered $5,000 in fees against the lawyer and client.
Pauliah v. Univ. of Miss. Medical Center · Mr. Begley · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · MS
“Manufacturing "facts," then presenting them to the Court as genuine, threatens to corrupt the Court's analysis and undermine the integrity of the judicial process at the summary judgment stage.”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • Pauliah v. Univ. of Miss. Medical Center; Mr. Begley and Dr. Pauliah were sanctioned.
  • A declaration filed in opposition to summary judgment contained fabricated quotations and manufactured deposition citations.
  • Judge Reeves levied $5,000 total, split $4,000 against Begley and $1,000 against Pauliah.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi; federal; Mississippi.
  • Order dated Nov. 4, 2025; the page says Pauliah admitted using generative AI and the court found bad faith.
Fined 2025-10-29
An applicant’s submission used non-existent or irrelevant case law and legislative provisions, and the adjudicator dismissed the application and awarded full costs.
Sky Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 373 · Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management · QLD
““If the applicant used AI or other sources in preparing the material they submitted, I am not satisfied they checked the accuracy of the information obtained”.”
qlsproctor.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Sky Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 373; the applicant was sanctioned in a body corporate dispute.
  • The submission contained numerous and persistent misrepresentations, including non-existent or irrelevant case law.
  • The adjudicator dismissed the application and awarded full costs to the respondent.
  • Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management, Queensland.
  • 29 October 2025; the adjudicator said the scale of deficiencies amounted to an abuse of process.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.