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 $28K
Local counsel Gary Buckles failed to review pleadings containing AI citations and received a public reprimand and a 12-month ban on sponsoring pro hac vice attorneys.
Mattox v. Product Innovations Research, LLC · Gary Buckles · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma · OK
“Before this Court, artificial intelligence is optional. Actual intelligence is mandatory.”
minchellalaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Mattox v. Product Innovations Research, LLC involved local counsel Gary Buckles.
  • Buckles failed to review pleadings filed under his sponsorship that contained AI content.
  • The court issued a public reprimand and a 12-month ban on sponsoring pro hac vice attorneys.
  • The case was in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
  • Buckles treated his role as 'a favor' and abdicated his duties as local counsel.
Fined
The self-represented respondent used generative AI in her written argument and cited non-existent cases; the court awarded a small costs award to the claimant.
J.R.V. v. N.L.V. · British Columbia Supreme Court
watsongoepel.com ↗
The file →
  • J.R.V. v. N.L.V. involved a self-represented respondent.
  • She used generative AI to prepare her written argument.
  • It produced citations to non-existent cases.
  • The court made a small costs award payable to the claimant.
  • 2025 BCSC 1137; the respondent apologized and said she did not know AI could generate fake citations.
Fined $2K
An attorney filed a brief citing multiple non-existent cases, and the court imposed a $2,500 sanction.
Texas AI hallucination case · Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas · TX
“violated basic duties of competence and candor as contemplated by the rules governing professional conduct.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Texas AI hallucination case involving an unnamed attorney
  • The lawyer filed a brief with multiple non-existent cases
  • The court imposed a $2,500 sanction
  • Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, Texas
  • The article says the judge found violations of competence and candor
Fined
Nicholas L. Palazzo filed briefs with erroneous and apparently fabricated citations, and the Pennsylvania federal court sanctioned him.
Patricia Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. and BJ’s Wholesale Club · Nicholas L. Palazzo of Defino Law Associates · PA
legal.io ↗
The file →
  • Patricia Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. and BJ’s Wholesale Club
  • Nicholas L. Palazzo submitted briefs with erroneous and apparently fabricated citations
  • The court sanctioned him
  • Pennsylvania federal court
  • The page says the cited cases either did not exist or had major factual errors
Warned
An attorney filed a brief with four possibly AI-generated fake case citations, and Judge Nancy Kennedy ordered counsel to prove the cases existed within 10 days.
Lauren Rochon-Eidsvig and Heidi Rochon Hafer v. JGB Collateral, LLC · Dallas Court of Appeals · TX
legal.io ↗
The file →
  • Lauren Rochon-Eidsvig and Heidi Rochon Hafer v. JGB Collateral, LLC
  • A Texas brief included four cases the court and opposing counsel could not locate
  • Judge Kennedy ordered counsel to verify the cases within 10 days
  • Dallas Court of Appeals, Texas
  • May 2024 brief; reported as a scrutiny/order rather than a money sanction
Warned
The Court of Appeal said parts of the submissions appeared to rely on non-existent authorities and warned AI outputs must be verified.
Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609 · New Zealand Court of Appeal
thelawyers.nz ↗
The file →
  • Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609; submissions were at issue
  • Parts of the submissions appeared to rely on non-existent authorities
  • The court warned that AI outputs must be verified before filing
  • New Zealand Court of Appeal
  • 16 October 2025; no AI tool was named
Reprimanded
A lawyer filed AI-generated citations with real cases but invented quotes inside them, and the Sixth Circuit reprimanded the lawyer and vacated the result.
United States v. Johnson-Ferris · Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
broadbandbreakfast.com ↗
The file →
  • United States v. Johnson-Ferris; lawyer unnamed
  • AI tool cited real cases but invented quotes inside them
  • Sixth Circuit reprimanded the lawyer and vacated the result
  • Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Date not stated; the court appointed new counsel for the defendant
Fined $10K
A self-represented plaintiff filed briefs generated using AI with fictitious cases, quotes, and law, and Judge Virginia Kendall struck the motion and sanctioned her $5,000.
Ifeoma Delliane Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois, et al. · Chinedu Obi · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · IL
“Plaintiff’s motion is riddled with AI hallucinations, made up cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006)
  • Andrade v. Arby Concessions, 88 F.4th 1014, 1018 (7th Cir. 2023)
fedcivilprocedure.com ↗
The file →
  • Chinedu Obi in Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois
  • He generated each brief using AI and filed hallucinated cases, quotes, and legal statements
  • Rule 11 sanctions totaling $9,750
  • Northern District of Illinois, federal court in Illinois
  • The court said the filings contained repeated, ongoing hallucinations and wasted time locating nonexistent cases
Fined
A claimant filed a petition with nonexistent precedents allegedly generated by AI, and the Supreme Federal Court found bad faith and ordered double court fees plus referral to the bar.
Supreme Federal Court Claim No 78,890 · Supreme Federal Court
ibanet.org ↗
The file →
  • Supreme Federal Court Claim No 78,890 involved a claimant whose petition cited nonexistent precedents.
  • The petition was found to contain AI-generated nonexistent precedents.
  • The court ordered double court fees and reported the matter to the Brazilian Bar Association.
  • Supreme Federal Court, Brazil.
  • The page says the improper use of AI in court by inventing binding precedents was bad faith.

Showing 251–260 of 858.

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