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 201–210 of 251 incidents. Clear filters

Fined $1K ChatGPT 2025-10-23
Counsel filed opposition papers with AI-generated false Louisiana case citations; the trial court sanctioned her and the appellate court affirmed.
In re: Sanctions Order of KENNEY (2025) · Connie P. Trieu · Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit · LA
“Plaintiff's counsel submitted legal authority and citations generated by “A.I.” software without verifying their authenticity.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Burns v. State, 813 So.2d 574
  • Smith v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp., 20-306 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/3/20), 308 So.3d 1216
  • Doe v. Southwest Louisiana Hosp. Ass'n, 02-180 (La. App. 3 Cir. 7/10/02), 833 So.2d 1136
caselaw.findlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • In re: Sanctions Order of KENNEY (2025) sanctioned Connie P. Trieu.
  • She filed pleadings containing three fabricated Louisiana citations and other citation errors.
  • The trial court ordered $1,368 in attorney's fees plus costs.
  • Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, in Louisiana.
  • Decided October 23, 2025; the opinion says the citations were generated by AI and notes ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot were used.
Fined $227 2025-10-17
A pro se litigant filed fabricated case law and legal norms, and the tribunal imposed a monetary sanction of 227 GBP.
Chi Keung Lee & others v Blackpool B&B Limited · First-tier Tribunal
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Chi Keung Lee & others v Blackpool B&B Limited involved a pro se litigant.
  • The filing contained fabricated case law and legal norms.
  • The tribunal imposed a monetary sanction of 227 GBP.
  • First-tier Tribunal, UK.
  • 17 October 2025; the page lists a monetary sanction.
Fined $6K 2025-10-13
A pro se claimant used AI to generate 46 inaccurate or misleading citations, and the tribunal imposed a costs order of 5881 GBP.
Hassan v ABC International Bank · Employment Tribunals
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Hassan v ABC International Bank involved AI-generated citations.
  • The tribunal found 46 inaccurate or misleading citations, including 9 fictitious ones.
  • It imposed a costs order of 5881 GBP.
  • Employment Tribunals, UK.
  • 13 October 2025; the page says the conduct was reckless and unreasonable.
Fined $5K Ghostwriter Legal 2025-10-10
James A. Johnson filed a motion with fabricated AI-generated citations, and Judge Terry F. Moorer reprimanded him and imposed sanctions.
United States v. McGee · James A. Johnson · US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · AL
“Somehow the message still has not been hammered home as the epidemic of citing fake cases continues unabated,”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • United States v. McGee involved James A. Johnson of Loxley, Ala.
  • He filed a motion in a criminal case containing nonexistent legal citations generated by AI.
  • Judge Terry F. Moorer imposed $5,000 in sanctions and reprimanded him.
  • The court was the US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
  • On 2025-10-10, Moorer said basic reprimands and small fines were not enough to deter the misconduct.
Fined $1K 2025-10-10
Edward A. Quesada filed a brief with nonexistent and erroneous citations, and Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín imposed sanctions and ordered CLE.
Oneto v. Watson · Edward A. Quesada · US District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Oneto v. Watson involved Edward A. Quesada of Glendora, Calif.
  • He filed a civil brief containing nonexistent and erroneous case citations.
  • The court imposed a $1,000 sanction and ordered him to take an AI CLE course.
  • The court was the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
  • On 2025-10-10, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín said his conduct violated professional-conduct rules and showed a failure to keep abreast of technology.
Fined $5K 2025-10-06
Judge William S. Stickman IV found Blackburn filed briefs with wholly fabricated quotations and misrepresented authorities linked to generative AI, then imposed sanctions.
Jakes v. Youngblood et al. · Tyrone A. Blackburn · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania · PA
“At this point, any attorney—but especially attorneys like [the sanctioned lawyer] with a cosmopolitan, multistate, practice—cannot plead ignorance to justify their use or misuse of AI in drafting legal documents.”
theinternetninja.com ↗
The file →
  • Jakes v. Youngblood et al.; Tyrone Blackburn was sanctioned.
  • His briefs contained wholly fabricated quotations and misrepresented authorities.
  • The court imposed a $5,000 sanction and some of T.D. Jakes' attorney's fees.
  • W.D. Pa., federal court in Pennsylvania.
  • Orders issued between June and October 2025; the court linked the filings to generative AI.
Fined 2025-10-02
A Mississippi state court judge imposed monetary sanctions on plaintiffs’ counsel for filing fictitious cases and quotations generated by AI.
FormanWatkins’s Mississippi state court case · Mississippi state court · MS
formanwatkins.com ↗
The file →
  • Mississippi state court case involving plaintiffs’ counsel
  • Counsel filed fictitious cases and quotations generated by AI
  • The judge imposed monetary sanctions
  • Mississippi state court in Mississippi
  • October 2, 2025; described as one of the first Mississippi state-court monetary sanctions over hallucinated case law
Fined $1K 2025-10-01
Michael Fourte filed briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and quotations, and Justice Joel M. Cohen sanctioned him and referred the matter to ethics committees.
Pamela Ader v. JS Property Holdings LLC · Michael Fourte · New York State Supreme Court, New York County · NY
“"the use of AI is not the problem per se; instead, “[t]he problem arises when attorneys abdicate their responsibility to ensure their factual and legal representations to the Court—even if originally sourced from AI—are accurate.””
nydailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
  • Pamela Ader v. JS Property Holdings LLC; Michael Fourte was sanctioned.
  • Fourte filed briefs containing AI-hallucinated citations and quotations, then added more in opposition papers.
  • Cohen sanctioned him and also sent the decision to ethics committees.
  • New York State Supreme Court, New York City, New York.
  • October 8, 2025; Justice Joel M. Cohen said counsel could not delegate candor to a software program.
Fined $5K ChatGPT 2025-10-01
Mr. Laprade filed proceedings with false AI-generated citations and other authorities, and the Superior Court of Quebec imposed a $5,000 penalty.
Specter Aviation Limited c. Laprade · Jean Laprade · Superior Court of Québec
“The Court therefore imposed a $5,000 sanction on the Defendant, both to punish his conduct and to deter similar behaviour in the future.”
gowlingwlg.com ↗
The file →
  • Specter Aviation Limited v. Laprade; Mr. Laprade was sanctioned
  • He filed proceedings with false citations, decisions, and references produced using AI
  • The court imposed a $5,000 penalty
  • Superior Court of Quebec, Quebec
  • October 1, 2025; the court said AI cannot justify inaccurate or fabricated documents
Fined $620 2025-09-29
Mr Lalwani cited a fictitious AI-generated authority in written submissions and was ordered to pay S$800 in personal costs.
Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen · Mr Lalwani Anil Mangan · General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
“It follows that the citation of a fictitious AI-generated authority to the court, whether intentionally or otherwise, is wholly impermissible.”
elitigation.sg ↗
The file →
  • Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen; Counsel for the Claimants
  • Written submissions cited a fictitious authority produced by a generative AI tool
  • Court ordered CC to pay costs personally to the Defendant
  • General Division of the High Court of Singapore
  • 29 September 2025; the judge said fictitious AI-generated authority is wholly impermissible
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.