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 231–240 of 251 incidents. Clear filters

Fined $2K 2025-06-30
The Court of Appeals of Georgia vacated a trial court order that relied on fictitious cases and imposed a $2,500 penalty.
Shahid v. Esaam · Diana Lynch · Georgia Court of Appeals · GA
“We are troubled by the citation of bogus cases in the trial court’s order.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Epps v. Epps (248 Ga. 637,285 S.E.2d 180, 1981)
  • Hodge v. Hodge (269 Ga. 604,501 S.E.2d 169, 1998)
capclaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Shahid v. Esaam; attorney Diana Lynch was sanctioned.
  • The trial court order and later filings contained bogus case citations.
  • The Court of Appeals struck the order, remanded the case, and sanctioned Lynch.
  • Georgia Court of Appeals, reviewing a DeKalb County Superior Court divorce matter.
  • June 30, 2025; the court said it had no proof AI was used but speculated about a consumer AI model.
Fined $100 2025-06-24
A lawyer’s written submissions cited non-existent cases, and the court ordered the submissions re-filed and imposed $100 in costs.
Hussein v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) · Federal Court of Canada
“The Court confirms that the inclusion of a Declaration, in and of itself, will not attract an adverse inference by the Court.”
clia.ca ↗
The file →
  • Hussein v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) involved written submissions citing cases that did not exist.
  • The court said the real issue was failure to disclose generative AI use.
  • The lawyer had to re-file the submissions and pay $100 in costs.
  • Federal Court, Canada.
  • 2025 FC 1138; the court encouraged parties to alert it when they see fake cases.
Fined $6K ChatGPT 2025-05-28
Attorney Rafael Ramirez was sanctioned $6,000 and subsequently resigned after submitting briefs containing fake AI-generated citations on three occasions.
Mid Central Operating Engineers Health & Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC · Rafael Ramirez · U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore · IN
inkfreenews.com ↗
The file →
  • Mid Central Operating Engineers v. HoosierVac involving an attorney.
  • Submitted three court briefs relying on non-existent citations from generative AI.
  • Fined $6,000 (reduced from a recommended $15,000).
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
  • Dated May 28, 2025; involved repeated filing of fake authority across multiple submissions.
Fined $2K 2025-05-20
Lord and Bello filed a response with a hallucinated case citation; Judge Matthewman ordered an AI ethics CLE, reimbursed fees and costs, and fined them.
Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enterprises, LLC · Timothy Lord; Joel Bello · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · FL
““In the Court's view, there is nothing inherently wrong with an attorney properly and competently utilizing AI or any of its subsets to practice law or litigate cases,””
relativity.com ↗
The file →
  • Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enters., LLC involved Timothy Lord and Joel Bello.
  • They filed a response containing a hallucinated case citation and later withdrew it.
  • Judge Matthewman imposed fees and costs, ordered an AI CLE, and fined Lord $1,000 and Bello $500.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Florida.
  • Order dated 2025-05-20; the article says neither lawyer purposely attempted to mislead the court.
Fined $31K CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 2025-05-06
Attorneys filed a brief with fabricated AI citations, failed to fix them, and were ordered to inform their client and pay $31,100 in legal fees.
Lacey v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. · K&L Gates LLP and Ellis George LLP · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions … only to find that they didn’t exist. That’s scary.”
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Lacey v. State Farm involving law firms Ellis George and K&L Gates.
  • Brief incorporated hallucinated authorities from CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, and Gemini.
  • Sanctioned $31,100 ($26,100 in special-master fees plus $5,000 fine).
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Special Master Wilner).
  • Dated May 6, 2025; K&L Gates included an unverified AI outline provided by co-counsel.
Fined Google Scholar 2025-04-22
Massar Briggs Law filed court documents with hallucinated footnotes; the court declined referral but ordered indemnity costs.
Murray on behalf of the Wamba Wemba Native Title Claim Group v State of Victoria · Massar Briggs Law · Federal Court of Australia · VIC
“Justice Murphy said it was likely that the false document citations came from using generative AI, which had the capacity to "fabricate" or "hallucinate" information.”
lawfuel.com ↗
The file →
  • Massar Briggs Law and principal lawyer Jason Briggs were involved in a native title determination.
  • A junior solicitor used AI software that fabricated citations for historical and anthropological reports.
  • The court ordered Massar Briggs Law to pay indemnity costs.
  • The matter was heard in the Australian Federal Court before Justice Bernard Murphy.
  • Justice Murphy chose to publish the order as a warning about the risks of generative AI in legal practice.
Fined $8K 2025-02-25
Senior Judge Walter H. Rice imposed a collective $7,500 sanction, found two attorneys in contempt, and referred them to disciplinary counsel over AI hallucinations.
Kettering Adventist Healthcare v. Sandra Collier, et al. · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio · OH
“the most egregious violations of Rule 11”
compliancehub.wiki ↗
The file →
  • Matter involved two attorneys before Senior Judge Walter H. Rice.
  • Attorneys repeatedly submitted fabricated filings after receiving a prior warning from the court.
  • Court imposed a $7,500 sanction, a contempt finding, and a referral to Ohio disciplinary counsel.
  • Adjudicated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
  • Judge Rice characterized the conduct as the most egregious Rule 11 violations he had seen on the bench.
Fined $5K AI-assisted legal software 2025-02-24
Judge Rankin revoked Rudwin Ayala's pro hac vice admission, fined him $3,000, and fined T. Michael Morgan and Taly Goody $1,000 each for motions citing eight fake cases.
Wadsworth v. Walmart · Rudwin Ayala, T. Michael Morgan, and Taly Goody · U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming · WY
“Blind reliance on another attorney can be an improper delegation of this duty and a violation of Rule 11.”
yahoo.com ↗
The file →
  • Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc. involved attorneys Rudwin Ayala, T. Michael Morgan, and Taly Goody.
  • Attorneys submitted motions in limine citing eight non-existent cases.
  • Fined a total of $5,000 ($3,000 for Ayala; $1,000 each for Morgan and Goody) plus pro hac vice revocation for Ayala.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming.
  • Sanctioned on 2025-02-24 under Rule 11 because a fake opinion is not existing law.
Fined $10K 2025-02-24
Aleshire & Wynder filed a writ-of-assistance application with fake and improper citations, and Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan ordered it to explain why a $10,000 fine should not be imposed.
A&T Ceramic Tile eminent domain lawsuit · Aleshire & Wynder, LLP · Fresno County Superior Court · CA
“Based on these observations, the court determines that legal contentions made by counsel for plaintiff were not warranted by existing law as represented through counsel’s signature and filing of the application,” Kapetan wrote in her Feb. 24 ruling.”
fresnoland.org ↗
The file →
  • A&T Ceramic Tile eminent domain lawsuit; Aleshire & Wynder, LLP.
  • The firm’s Dec. 31 filing contained fake and improper citations, including non-existent case law and a non-existent statute.
  • Judge ordered the firm to show cause why a $10,000 fine should not be imposed.
  • Fresno County Superior Court in Fresno, California.
  • Feb. 24 ruling by Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan; the article says the filing listed three attorneys but was signed by Carrie Raven.
Fined 2025-02-01
Three Morgan & Morgan lawyers were sanctioned after filing motions that cited eight non-existent cases generated by their in-house AI platform.
Morgan & Morgan attorneys · Morgan & Morgan attorneys · federal court
corporatecounselnow.com ↗
The file →
  • Morgan & Morgan attorneys were sanctioned in a federal case.
  • They filed motions with eight non-existent cases generated by their in-house AI platform.
  • The court sanctioned them after finding no reasonable inquiry into the law.
  • The article gives no judge name or exact court location.
  • It says the misconduct occurred in February 2025 and involved Rule 11.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.