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
Reprimanded
A Los Angeles attorney filed appellate briefs containing AI-hallucinated case law quotations and agreed to discipline from the California State Bar.
California State Bar disciplinary matter (Los Angeles attorney) · Los Angeles attorney · California State Bar · CA
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Los Angeles attorney disciplined by the California State Bar
  • Filed appellate briefs rife with AI-hallucinated case law quotations
  • Agreed to discipline; no amount stated
  • California State Bar in California
  • Feb. 26, 2026 article; stipulation approved Wednesday
Warned ChatGPT
Three lawyers were warned after using ChatGPT to cite fake or incorrect legal cases in court, and two were ordered to take an AI training course.
Dutch lawyers warned for misusing ChatGPT in court · Three lawyers in the Netherlands
nltimes.nl ↗
The file →
  • Three lawyers in the Netherlands were warned
  • They misused ChatGPT to cite fake or incorrect legal cases in court
  • Sanction was a warning, and two lawyers had to take an AI training course
  • No court or judge name is given in the page text
  • The report says two were ordered to take an AI training course
Caught, not sanctioned
A filing cited nonexistent cases generated by AI, and the Third DCA warned courts should not have to parse citations to see whether cases exist.
Takefman v. Pickleball Club, LLC · Third District Court of Appeal · FL
“courts “should not have to parse case citations and parentheticals to discern whether cases exist.””
miamidadebar.org ↗
The file →
  • Takefman v. Pickleball Club, LLC involved a filing with AI-generated nonexistent cases.
  • The filing contained fabricated legal authority from AI.
  • The court addressed the problem but the page does not report a sanction.
  • Third District Court of Appeal, Florida.
  • The page does not name the AI tool; it quotes the court on checking whether cases exist.
Caught, not sanctioned
A Massachusetts lawyer was sanctioned for filing AI-generated fictitious case citations.
Massachusetts Lawyer Sanctioned for AI-Generated Fictitious Case Citations · Massachusetts state court · MA
amerisurv.com ↗
The file →
  • The page cites a Massachusetts lawyer sanctioned for AI-generated fictitious case citations.
  • The lawyer filed fictitious citations created by AI.
  • The article gives no sanction amount or named judge.
  • Massachusetts state court, Massachusetts.
  • No date or tool name is given on the page.
Fined $1K
A self-represented litigant filed a factum citing fake authorities, and the ABKB ordered additional costs.
Barrette v. Wevers · Alberta Court of King’s Bench
“"wild goose chase"”
commerciallitigationblog.com ↗
The file →
  • Barrette v. Wevers involved a self-represented litigant.
  • His factum referenced at least three fake authorities, including two fake cases and one fake regulation.
  • The ABKB ordered CA$1,000 per set of respondents in additional costs.
  • The court was the Alberta Court of King’s Bench in Alberta.
  • The ABKB said the litigant sent counsel and the court on a "wild goose chase" and had to "up the ante".
Fined $500
A self-represented litigant filed a factum using AI that referenced three non-existent cases, and the ABCA ordered additional costs.
DJ v. SN · Alberta Court of Appeal
“"more substantial penalties" will follow in future cases of non-compliance with the Notice.”
commerciallitigationblog.com ↗
The file →
  • DJ v. SN involved a self-represented litigant.
  • Her factum admitted using AI and cited three non-existent cases.
  • The ABCA awarded CA$500 in additional costs.
  • The court was the Alberta Court of Appeal in Alberta.
  • The court warned that "more substantial penalties" would follow for future non-compliance.
Referred to the bar
Birmingham firm City Laws lodged a judicial-review application with several false citations and was referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
City Laws · City Laws · Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber
“It matters not how such citation errors come about.”
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • City Laws, a Birmingham immigration law firm, filed an application for judicial review with false citations.
  • The firm said the grounds were drafted by Waheed Malik using an outdated precedent, blogs and personal notes.
  • The tribunal referred senior solicitor Zubair Rasheed to the SRA.
  • Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber; judge Fiona Lindsley.
  • November 2025 decision, published on 24 February 2026; the tribunal said it was about supervision and not misleading the tribunal.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT
A solicitor submitted a filing with a fake case name and false citations; the Upper Tribunal said it would have referred him to regulators but for his self-reporting.
Tahir Mehmood Mohammed · Tahir Mehmood Mohammed · Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber
“It matters not how such citation errors come about.”
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Tahir Mehmood Mohammed, a solicitor at TMF Immigration Lawyers, filed false citations.
  • He said he may have used Google AI mode and had also put client material into ChatGPT.
  • The tribunal would have referred him to the IAA and SRA but for self-reporting.
  • Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber; judge Fiona Lindsley.
  • November 2025 decision, published on 24 February 2026; the judge said errors matter regardless of whether they came from a trainee or ChatGPT.
Warned
The Supreme Court said John Jones cited authorities that appeared to have been hallucinated by an AI application and warned such misuse could lead to contempt.
John Jones · John Jones · Supreme Court of New Zealand
“"Misuse of AI in legal proceedings has serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system,"”
lawnews.nz ↗
The file →
  • John Jones was the litigant identified by the Supreme Court.
  • He submitted authorities that appeared to be hallucinated by an AI application.
  • The court warned the misuse could amount to contempt of court.
  • Supreme Court of New Zealand; judges Ellen France, Stephen Kós, and Forrie Miller.
  • February 16, 2026; the page says self-represented litigants must ensure authorities are genuine.
Caught, not sanctioned
An Alabama Supreme Court sanction targeted an attorney whose briefs cited nonexistent cases, and the court noted he repeated a fabricated citation after being warned.
unavailable · Alabama Supreme Court · AL
toppeconsulting.com ↗
The file →
  • An attorney before the Alabama Supreme Court was sanctioned.
  • His briefs contained citations to cases that did not exist.
  • The page does not state the sanction amount.
  • The court was the Alabama Supreme Court in Alabama.
  • The opinion noted he repeated a fake citation after being told about one.

Showing 221–230 of 858.

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