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 221–230 of 251 incidents. Clear filters

Fined $5K vLex Fastcase 2025-09-08
The court struck briefs, referred counsel to the bar, and imposed a $5,000 fine for submitting a fabricated case citation from AI.
Brooks & Brooks Inc. v. Patel · David Lutz · D. Minn. · MN
roncooklawfirm.com ↗
The file →
  • Brooks and Brooks Inc. v. Patel et al. involving an unnamed lawyer
  • Lawyer relied on VLex Fastcase, leading to one fabricated case citation
  • Court struck briefs, referred lawyer to the bar, and ordered $5,000 sanction
  • District Court of Minnesota (DC Minnesota)
  • Order issued on September 8, 2025; VLex Fastcase used
Fined ChatGPT 2025-08-28
A pro se plaintiff filed a brief citing a non-existent Third Circuit case generated by AI, and Judge Karoline Mehalchick sanctioned him.
Allbaugh v. Univ. of Scranton · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · PA
“Rule 11 does not prohibit the use of generative AI, however, it does require parties to verify that they are not submitting briefs to the Court which rely on fictitious cases.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Allbaugh v. Univ. of Scranton, 2025 WL 2484188
cgalaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Allbaugh v. Univ. of Scranton involved a pro se plaintiff sanctioned for an AI-generated fake citation.
  • The plaintiff cited a non-existent Third Circuit opinion in a brief.
  • Judge Karoline Mehalchick imposed sanctions for the misuse of AI and the false citation.
  • The case was in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
  • On 2025-08-28, the court said parties must verify briefs do not rely on fictitious cases.
Fined $1K 2025-08-13
Lawyer cited fabricated and misrepresented cases, resulting in a $1,000 fine, CLE mandate, and disciplinary committee referral.
Woody Nora v. M & A Transport, Inc., et al. · E.D. Louisiana · LA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Woody Nora v. M & A Transport, Inc. involved an unnamed lawyer.
  • Counsel submitted fabricated and misrepresented case law to the court.
  • $1,000 fine, 1 hour of Generative AI CLE, and referral to Disciplinary Committee.
  • E.D. Louisiana (Federal).
  • Decided August 13, 2025.
Fined $2K Westlaw Precision 2025-08-06
An attorney was sanctioned $1,500 after using an AI tool to summarize an opinion and improperly quoting text that did not actually appear in the decision.
In re BFI Waste Sys. of Tenn. · Billy Ringger · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · TN
“[A]rtificial intelligence combines the illusion of thorough review and analysis with the temptations of speed and low cost.”
mondaq.com ↗
The file →
  • Environmental attorney Billy Ringger was sanctioned by the court.
  • Ringger included language in quotes from a WestLaw AI summary without verifying it appeared in the opinion.
  • Federal Magistrate Judge Luke Evans imposed a $1,500 monetary sanction.
  • The order was issued in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
  • On August 6, 2025, Judge Evans noted that AI offers speed and low cost but creates the illusion of thorough review.
Fined 2025-07-30
A UK law firm filed an application with two AI-generated fake cases, then the claim was struck out with indemnity costs and a wasted costs order was made.
Birmingham City University claim · unnamed UK law firm · Divisional Court
“His Honour Judge Charman found that the solicitor’s and firm’s conduct was improper, unreasonable and negligent, applying the Divisional Court’s June guidance from Ayinde.”
vinciworks.com ↗
The file →
  • Unnamed UK law firm in a Birmingham City University claim
  • Filed an application citing two fictitious AI-generated cases
  • Claim was struck out with indemnity costs and a wasted costs order followed
  • Divisional Court / UK, in a Birmingham City University matter
  • 30 July 2025; fake cases were generated by an AI research feature in legal software
Fined $2K 2025-07-23
Lawyer's clerk used AI to generate unverified fabricated citations, resulting in a fine and mandatory legal tech CLE.
Karina Elizondo vs. City of Laredo · S.D. Texas · TX
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Karina Elizondo vs. City of Laredo involving counsel
  • Law clerk used AI tools and failed to verify fabricated citations
  • $2,500 monetary sanction and mandatory CLE in ethics/legal tech
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
  • Order issued July 23, 2025; counsel required to serve order on client
Fined $8K 2025-07-21
Lawyer filed briefs with nonexistent cases in a parental rights appeal and was ordered to disgorge fees and pay monetary sanctions.
In re Boy · CA Illinois · IL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Boy involving an attorney in a parental rights appeal
  • Lawyer cited eight nonexistent cases and submitted false quotes
  • Sanctioned $7,925 in monetary penalties and fee disgorgement
  • Decided in the Illinois Court of Appeals
  • Order issued July 21, 2025; found in violation of Rule 375
Fined $6K ChatGPT 2025-07-18
Thomas Nield used ChatGPT to research a Chapter 13 issue and filed briefs with nonexistent cases and quotes; Judge Michael Slade fined him $5,500.
In re Marla C. Martin · Thomas Nield · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois · IL
“The next lawyer who does the same thing is warned that he or she will likely see a more significant penalty.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Thomas Nield, a former Semrad Law Firm bankruptcy attorney, was sanctioned in Illinois.
  • He used ChatGPT and filed documents with hallucinated cases and quotes.
  • Judge Michael Slade imposed a $5,500 fine.
  • The sanction came from the Illinois bankruptcy court.
  • The article says he used ChatGPT for an ancillary issue in a Chapter 13 case and was terminated in September.
Fined $6K Copilot 2025-07-07
Post-trial filings contained about 30 defective citations generated by Copilot, Gemini, and Grok, and Judge Nina Y. Wang imposed sanctions.
Coomer v. Lindell · Christopher I. Kachouroff; Jennifer T. DeMaster; MyPillow attorneys · U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado · CO
“the “least severe sanction adequate to deter and punish defense counsel in this instance.””
llms-for-lawyers.com ↗
The file →
  • Coomer v. Lindell involving two attorneys representing Mike Lindell.
  • Attorneys used Copilot, Gemini, Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, and Perplexity resulting in fake citations.
  • Fined $3,000 each (total $6,000), with an additional $5,000 fine on one attorney later.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
  • Dated July 7, 2025; attorneys relied on a wide array of public consumer chatbots.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.