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
Fined $5K
Defense counsel filed a brief and later papers citing 23 fabricated cases, then the New York appellate court imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction.
Joshua A. Douglass · Joshua A. Douglass · New York appellate court · NY
“Defendant’s opening brief cites six cases which do not exist.”
legalethicslawyer.blog ↗
The file →
  • Joshua A. Douglass was sanctioned in a New York foreclosure appeal.
  • He filed a brief and later papers containing hallucinated and fabricated legal authorities.
  • The court imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction.
  • The matter was in a New York appellate court.
  • The opinion says he used AI and that five filings contained at least 23 fabricated cases.
Reprimanded
A lawyer in Australia used LLM-generated false citations and was stripped of his ability to practice as a principal lawyer.
The Australian incident
socialsciencespace.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in Australia, unnamed on the page, was sanctioned
  • He used a large language model that generated false citations
  • He was stripped of his ability to practice as a principal lawyer
  • The page gives no court or judge name
  • The article says he apologized and the citations were not due to human error or intent to deceive
Fined $10K
An attorney filed fabricated case citations and quotations, and the court imposed a total $10,000 sanction.
Mid Cent. Operating Engrs. Health & Welfare Fund v HoosierVac LLC · State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department · NY

Cases that don't exist

  • Mid Cent. Operating Engrs. Health & Welfare Fund v HoosierVac LLC, 2025 WL ...
hinshawlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Mid Cent. Operating Engrs. Health & Welfare Fund v HoosierVac LLC involved an attorney sanctioned for AI-fabricated citations.
  • The filing contained fabricated case citations and quotations.
  • The court imposed a total $10,000 sanction.
  • The court was the State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.
  • The page does not identify an AI tool or provide a quoted judge statement.
Caught, not sanctioned
The court found briefing with citations to nonexistent judicial opinions potentially derived from generative AI and sanctioned the respondent.
Eric Chibueze Nwaubani · Eric Chibueze Nwaubani · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · NY
websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com ↗
The file →
  • Eric Chibueze Nwaubani was the respondent in the matter.
  • His briefing contained citations to nonexistent judicial opinions.
  • The court imposed sanctions, but the page excerpt does not state a monetary amount.
  • The matter was in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  • The page says the fake citations were potentially derived from generative artificial intelligence.
Warned
The Supreme Court said lawyers were filing AI-drafted petitions containing fake judgments and warned that some cited cases and quotes did not exist.
Roop Rekha Verma PIL · Supreme Court of India
“We are alarmed to reflect that some lawyers have started using AI to draft petitions.”
dailypioneer.com ↗
The file →
  • Roop Rekha Verma’s PIL was before the Supreme Court
  • The bench said AI-drafted petitions contained non-existent judgments and fake quotes
  • No sanction was imposed; the court issued a warning
  • Supreme Court of India, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant
  • Feb. 18, 2026; Justice Nagarathna cited 'Mercy vs Mankind' and said some quoted portions did not exist
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
The Upper Tribunal held a Hamid hearing over two immigration matters involving incorrect or fake case citations that did not match the cited cases.
UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid) [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“to put client letters and decision letters from the Home Office into an open source AI tool, such as ChatGPT, is to place this information on the internet in the public domain, and thus to breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege, and thus any regulated legal professional or firm that does so would, in addition to needing to bring this to the attention of their regulator, be advised to consult with the Information Commissioner’s Office.”
gowlingwlg.com ↗
The file →
  • UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid) [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) was the latest case discussed.
  • It involved two separate instances of suspected AI-invented or otherwise incorrect case citations.
  • The article says one case looked trivial and the other serious, but the tribunal may not have actually sanctioned anyone.
  • The court was the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).
  • Published 2026-02-24; the article notes the tribunal may have been too quick to cry AI.
Warned
A federal judge ordered an attorney at Arete Law Group to file a sworn declaration after opposing counsel alleged dozens of AI hallucinations in multiple filings.
Arete Law Group matter · Arete Law Group · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · WA
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Arete Law Group was the firm identified in the article.
  • Opposing counsel alleged dozens of artificial intelligence hallucinations across multiple case filings.
  • The judge ordered a sworn declaration, signaling possible sanctions.
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Washington.
  • Feb. 5, 2026; the article does not name the AI tool or quote the judge.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT
Two judicial review applications contained false case citations generated by non-specialist AI tools, and the Tribunal warned that supervisors and signatories risk referral.
R (on the application of Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“Legal professionals are obliged to ensure that legal arguments which are presented to the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal are factually and legally accurate.”
ein.org.uk ↗
The file →
  • R (on the application of Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved two judicial review applications.
  • The grounds and supporting material contained false and non-existent case citations from AI drafting.
  • The Tribunal warned failures to check work are likely to result in referral to the SRA or another regulator.
  • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), UK.
  • Published 2026-02-20; the page says ChatGPT was one open-source AI tool discussed.
Fined
An AI-drafted employee claim cited three phantom Full Bench authorities, and Deputy President World rejected it.
Deputy President World rejected a claim citing three phantom Full Bench authorities · Fair Work Commission
“Deputy President World rejected a claim citing three phantom Full Bench authorities, warning of costs.”
winterconsulting.com.au ↗
The file →
  • AI-drafted employee claim cited three phantom Full Bench authorities.
  • The filing used fabricated case references and was rejected.
  • The page says there was a warning of costs, but gives no amount.
  • Fair Work Commission; location not stated.
  • 2025; the page does not name the AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
An attorney filed a brief with AI-generated case citations that did not exist and later resigned.
Court records show an attorney resigned after submitting a filing with AI-generated case citations that did not exist
threads.com ↗
The file →
  • An attorney was involved in a filing with AI-generated case citations that did not exist.
  • The filing used fabricated citations generated by AI.
  • No sanction is stated on the page; the attorney resigned.
  • The court is not identified on the page.
  • The page gives no date, judge, or AI tool name.

Showing 211–220 of 858.

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