legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
858
Incidents tracked
265
Incidents in 2026
$2,417,608
In fines, where reported
214 of 858 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 450 of 858 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 151 Claude 9 CoCounsel 8 Copilot 8 Gemini 8 Lexis+ AI 6 AI-assisted legal software 4 Westlaw Precision 4 ChatGPT-4o 2 ChatOn 2 Eve 2 Google AI 2 LEAP 2 Perplexity AI 2 AI Overviews 1 Archie 1 Centient AI 1 ChatGPT-4 1 ClearBrief 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 GPT-3.5 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google Scholar 1 Grammarly 1 Grok 1 Irys 1 Legal Genius 1 LegalAI 1 MX2.law 1 OpenCase 1 Strongsuit 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
Caught, not sanctioned
A mother in person filed a skeleton argument assisted by AI that included non-existent citations, and the court noted the errors.
D (a child) (recusal) · Court of Appeal
“It is entirely understandable that litigants in person should resort to artificial intelligence for help.”
unit.law ↗
The file →
  • D (a child) (recusal) involved a mother acting in person.
  • She filed an AI-assisted skeleton argument for a recusal appeal.
  • The page says some citations did not exist at all.
  • Court of Appeal; no sanction is described on the page.
  • Baker LJ said litigants in person may understandably resort to AI for help.
Filing dismissed ChatGPT
A worker filed AI-generated WCAT submissions with fabricated cases and policies; WCAT dismissed the appeal and warned of possible costs.
A2501051, 2025 CanLII 97422 · British Columbia Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal
“It appears that the worker’s submission was created, at least partly, with the use of artificial intelligence.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Zhang v. Chen, 2024 BCSC 285
  • Geismayr v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1970, 2025 BCCRT 217
  • AQ v. BW, 2025 BCCRT 907

+1 more

wcblawyers.com ↗
The file →
  • A2501051 at WCAT involved a worker's submission.
  • The worker used AI to prepare arguments for a prohibited action appeal.
  • The submission contained fake cases, incorrect policy, and bad legal arguments.
  • WCAT dismissed the appeal and noted AI-based submissions can lead to costs.
  • The deputy registrar said the submission was partly created with artificial intelligence and cited hallucinated cases.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
An attorney used ChatGPT to draft a brief that cited made-up cases, and the resulting case was later recognized as fabricated.
Varghese v. China Southern Airlines

Cases that don't exist

  • Varghese v. China Southern Airlines
zdnet.com ↗
The file →
  • Varghese v. China Southern Airlines involved an attorney who used ChatGPT to prepare a legal brief.
  • The brief contained legal cases that did not actually exist.
  • The page does not name a sanction in this incident.
  • The article says the problem case was fabricated by ChatGPT.
  • The page gives no judge, court, or sanction date for this incident.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A litigant in person filed a submission using a legal phrase that looked Scottish or American, and the judge said it had the hallmarks of ChatGPT.
Reddan v An Bord Pleanála · High Court of Ireland
“This sounds like something that derived from an artificial intelligence source. It has all the hallmarks of ChatGPT, or some similar AI tool.”
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
  • Reddan v An Bord Pleanála involved a litigant in person.
  • The filing used a phrase not used in Ireland and suggested AI generation.
  • No sanction is described on the page.
  • High Court of Ireland.
  • The judge said it had the hallmarks of ChatGPT or similar AI.
Warned
A solicitor insisted that an expert witness use an AI-generated report, and Mr Justice Waksman called it a gross breach of duty.
Mr Justice Waksman · Construction and Technology Court
“That to my mind is a gross breach of duty on the part of the solicitor.”
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
  • A solicitor in the Construction and Technology Court was involved.
  • He insisted that an expert witness use an AI-generated report.
  • Mr Justice Waksman described it as a gross breach of duty.
  • Construction and Technology Court, England and Wales.
  • The page names Waksman and quotes his criticism of the solicitor.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A litigant in person used ChatGPT to draft an appeal submission containing fake cases, and the ruling reiterated that an unrepresented person must not mislead the court.
Barton v Wright Hassell LLP · UK Supreme Court
““an unrepresented person is still under a duty not to mislead the court””
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
  • Barton v Wright Hassell LLP involved a litigant in person.
  • He used ChatGPT to draft a submission with fake cases.
  • The page reports no sanction, only a warning principle from the ruling.
  • UK Supreme Court.
  • The ruling quoted the duty of an unrepresented person not to mislead the court.
Warned
A plaintiff filed AI-generated briefs with non-existent case law and then objected when the magistrate judge warned him about the citations.
Plaintiffs' AI-citation objection matter · U.S. District Court (magistrate judge and objections order)
“Finally, Plaintiffs [sic] objects to the Magistrate Judge’s “criticism” of his use of artificial intelligence to cite to non-existent case law and errors in other citations.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Solomon v. Norwest Corp., 546 S.E.2d 330 (Ga. 2001)
abovethelaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Plaintiff and his AI-generated filings were called out for fake citations.
  • He cited non-existent case law and then objected to the warning.
  • The court issued a warning, not a monetary sanction.
  • U.S. District Court; federal; location not specified on the page.
  • The page says opposing counsel identified multiple specific false citations, including Solomon v. Norwest Corp.
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.
Warned
A California appeals court ordered a judge to determine whether DA Jesse Wilson should face sanctions after his office submitted AI-fabricated citations in four felony cases.
California Supreme Court Orders Sanctions Review of DA Accused of Using Hallucinating AI · Nevada County District Attorney Jesse Wilson · California Supreme Court · CA
law.com ↗
The file →
  • Nevada County District Attorney Jesse Wilson was accused of using AI-fabricated citations.
  • The filing allegedly contained fake, artificial intelligence-generated citations.
  • The California Supreme Court ordered a lower court to consider sanctions.
  • Court: California Supreme Court, California.
  • January 16, 2026 article; Wilson said human error, not generative AI, caused the errors.

Showing 201–210 of 858.

Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.