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

Showing 191–199 of 199 incidents. Clear filters

Caught, not sanctioned 2025-01-06
Thomas W. King’s brief was flagged for apparent AI-hallucinated citations, and the judge ordered it corrected and refiled without imposing sanctions at the hearing.
South Side Area School District et. al v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission · Thomas Breth and Thomas W. King III / Thomas More Society · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · PA
““When I read the brief that was signed by three attorneys from your firm, I had a problem,” he told King and fellow lawyer Thomas E. Breth. “I read what I believe to be artificial intelligence hallucinations.””

Cases that don't exist

  • Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Labor and Industry
wesanews.org ↗
The file →
  • South Side Area School District et. al v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission; Thomas W. King and his firm were scrutinized.
  • The 50-page October filing was said to contain quotes that did not exist or were miscontextualized.
  • No sanction was imposed in the hearing; King was told to correct and refile the brief.
  • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania.
  • Dec. 12, 2025 article; Judge Matthew Wolf said he believed the brief contained AI hallucinations.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2025-01-01
The appellant filed written submissions with six inaccurate cited decisions and one apparently fictitious case; the court ignored the authorities and denied costs.
NCR v KKB, 2025 ABKB 417 · Alberta Court of King’s Bench
“Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court. Unchecked, it can lead to the miscarriage of justice.”
hayherlee.com ↗
The file →
  • NCR v KKB, 2025 ABKB 417 involved a self-represented mother.
  • Her written submissions cited six inaccurate decisions and one apparently fictitious case.
  • The court denied costs and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
  • The decision was from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench.
  • The court inferred possible AI-generated content and quoted Zhang v Chen about fake cases.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-01-01
Michael Fourte submitted court filings with AI-fabricated quotations and citations and was sanctioned.
Michael Fourte · Michael Fourte
cmr.berkeley.edu ↗
The file →
  • Michael Fourte was sanctioned in 2025.
  • He filed court papers filled with AI-fabricated quotations and citations.
  • The page does not state the sanction type or amount.
  • The court and location are not named on the page.
  • He later filed another motion, also written with a large language model, repeating the same mistakes.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-01-01
A self-represented litigant filed materials with AI-hallucinated case law, and the court said inaccurate AI-based filings can draw costs orders.
Wu v. Murray · British Columbia Court of Appeal
“whether the inaccurate representations are made by a lawyer or a self-represented party”
canadianlawyermag.com ↗
The file →
  • Wu v. Murray involved a self-represented litigant, not a named lawyer or firm.
  • The filing included AI-hallucinated case law.
  • The court said inaccurate AI-based filings can be penalized with remedies including costs orders.
  • British Columbia Court of Appeal, British Columbia.
  • 2025; the page cites the case as an example of the court's filing directive, but gives no sanction order date or AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-01-01
A party's submissions included a non-existent case, showing hallucinated references can slip into court filings when AI outputs aren't verified.
Luck v Secretary, Services Australia · Federal Court of Australia Full Court
lexisnexis.com ↗
The file →
  • Luck v Secretary, Services Australia involved a party's submissions.
  • The page says a non-existent case was included in the submissions.
  • No sanction is described on the page.
  • Federal Court of Australia Full Court, Australia.
  • 2025; cited as a stark reminder that hallucinated references can reach the record.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2024-12-30
A representative pasted chatbot-supplied fake Supreme Court and Madras High Court citations into the tribunal record; the order was recalled within a week.
Buckeye Trust v. PCIT · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru bench · KA
medianama.com ↗
The file →
  • ITAT Bengaluru bench matter
  • An order cited four non-existent judgments from unverified ChatGPT use
  • The bench recalled the order; no formal sanction is stated
  • Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru
  • December 2024; the citations were traced back to ChatGPT
Caught, not sanctioned 2024-07-15
Bluefort’s brief contained mistaken and misleading citations drafted with AI, but Judge Mark Howard said the matter was resolved with no further action.
Windham couple v. contractor (name not given) · Nicole Bluefort · Rockingham County Superior Court · NH
“the court considers the matter resolved and no further action is necessary”
concordmonitor.com ↗
The file →
  • Nicole Bluefort in the Windham couple’s lawsuit
  • AI-drafted briefs contained mistaken, misleading and nonexistent citations
  • No sanction; Bluefort paid just over $5,000 in opposing counsel’s extra time
  • Rockingham County Superior Court, New Hampshire
  • July 15 order; Judge Mark Howard accepted remediation and ended the matter
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2023-01-01
Mrs Harber cited nine FTT decisions in her appeal to the First-Tier Tax Tribunal, but the tribunal and HMRC found that these cases did not exist and were generated by an AI system.
Harber v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2023] UKFTT 1007 (TC) · Mrs Harber · First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)
burges-salmon.com ↗
The file →
  • Harber v Commissioners for HMRC involved a self-represented appellant
  • Appellant submitted fictitious cases generated using ChatGPT to support a tax penalty appeal
  • The tribunal rejected the fake authorities and imposed no formal sanction due to her unrepresented status
  • Decided by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) in the UK
  • Established early precedent that AI-generated fake cases carry no judicial weight
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.