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
Warned ChatGPT
A firm filed two briefs with five false ChatGPT-generated citations, and a federal judge was considering sanctions and potential fines.
another firm · federal judge
courtroomsciences.com ↗
The file →
  • Another firm faced possible sanctions for false citations.
  • Attorneys filed two briefs containing five ChatGPT-generated false citations.
  • The judge was considering sanctions and potential fines; no amount is given.
  • A federal judge in federal court.
  • The partner admitted using ChatGPT without verification and the firm apologized.
Caught, not sanctioned
Defendants said plaintiff's attorneys cited six cases that appeared to be fabricated legal citations, but the page does not state any sanction order.
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD
govinfo.gov ↗
The file →
  • Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD involved plaintiff's attorneys.
  • Defendants identified six cited cases that appeared fabricated.
  • The page does not report any sanction imposed.
  • Federal case in an unspecified court.
  • The page gives no date, AI tool, judge quote, or citation strings.
Caught, not sanctioned $2K
A lawyer submitted case citations from a generative AI program in filings to a federal district court without checking their accuracy, and the lawyer was sanctioned.
unidentified lawyer · federal district court
reuters.com ↗
The file →
  • An unnamed lawyer was sanctioned.
  • The lawyer filed citations generated by a generative AI program without checking them.
  • The court imposed a sanction, but the page gives no type or amount.
  • The matter was in federal district court.
  • The page gives no date or AI product name.
Caught, not sanctioned
An expert filed court declarations with AI-hallucinated citations and narrowly avoided sanction, but the page gives no order details.
Stanford Internet Observatory matter · an expert from the Stanford Internet Observatory
“The irony.”
ipwatchdog.com ↗
The file →
  • Stanford Internet Observatory matter and an unnamed expert
  • The expert submitted court declarations containing AI-hallucinated citations
  • No sanction amount or formal sanction is described on the page
  • Court and judge are not named on the page
  • The page quotes the judge's written opinion as 'The irony.'
Referred to the bar
A Queensland solicitor was referred to the Legal Services Commission after a filing contained fake citations and may have been AI-generated.
Lyle v. Queensland Rural and Industrial Development Authority · A Queensland solicitor · District Court of Queensland
lawyerly.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Lyle v. Queensland Rural and Industrial Development Authority; a Queensland solicitor
  • A filing contained fake citations and may have been AI-generated
  • Referred to the Legal Services Commission
  • District Court of Queensland
  • No AI tool or date was stated on the page
Caught, not sanctioned
A lawyer filed a brief containing AI-generated issues and case law, and the court addressed the problem in a costs ruling.
Re Gary Man Kin Ng · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Re Gary Man Kin Ng involved a brief containing AI-generated material.
  • The page says the court grappled with issues arising from the lawyer's brief.
  • It does not state a monetary sanction or other sanction imposed.
  • The court was the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
  • The page gives no date, named attorney, or named AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
In a Quebec Superior Court fraud judgment, the ruling allegedly used AI and cited nonexistent cases and testimony, and the defendants appealed.
Jocelyn Geoffroy decision (Quebec commercial fraud case) · Quebec Superior Court
theglobeandmail.com ↗
The file →
  • Quebec Superior Court commercial fraud case involving Justice Jocelyn Geoffroy's decision
  • Defendants alleged the ruling contained AI hallmarks, including citations to cases that do not exist
  • No sanction is reported on the page; it describes an appeal and possible retrial
  • Quebec Superior Court, Quebec, Canada
  • Published 2026-03-30; the article says the allegation of AI use has not been confirmed
Fined
Lawyers filed submissions containing fictitious cases and authorities, and the High Court sanctioned them and ordered personal costs.
Ng Yat Chun v. Public Prosecutor · High Court of Singapore
techandjustice.bsg.ox.ac.uk ↗
The file →
  • Ng Yat Chun v. Public Prosecutor; lawyers were sanctioned
  • Submissions used AI and included fictitious cases and authorities
  • The court ordered personal costs against the lawyers
  • High Court of Singapore, Singapore
  • The page says this was one of at least two civil cases in Singapore
Referred to the bar
A pupil barrister filed a brief with five fake citations and a false statute text, and a solicitor filed an application with 18 made-up citations; Dame Sharp referred both to regulators.
In June 2025 two separate cases before the English High Court · English High Court
jmc-legal.com ↗
The file →
  • English High Court cases involving a pupil barrister and a solicitor
  • They filed hallucinated citations and a wrong statute text in court papers
  • Both were referred to their regulators by Dame Sharp
  • English High Court, England
  • June 2025; the article says the solicitor used "publicly available artificial intelligence tools"

Showing 231–240 of 858.

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