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
Caught, not sanctioned
Romeyn faced State Bar discipline after a personal injury filing allegedly used AI and contained nonexistent and irrelevant citations.
Steven Thomas Romeyn · Steven Thomas Romeyn · State Bar Court · CA
aol.com ↗
The file →
  • Steven Thomas Romeyn was accused by the State Bar over a personal injury case.
  • He allegedly submitted irrelevant and nonexistent citations in an Orange County Superior Court filing.
  • The State Bar Court had not yet ruled, so no sanction had been imposed on this page.
  • The matter was in Orange County Superior Court in California.
  • He later disclosed using AI and said he had not verified every citation before filing.
Fined $2K CoCounsel
The Fifth Circuit sanctioned an Arkansas lawyer for filing an AI-generated brief with 21 fictional case citations and other errors.
Arkansas lawyer sanctioned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
bestlawfirms.com ↗
The file →
  • An Arkansas lawyer was sanctioned by the Fifth Circuit.
  • The lawyer filed an AI-generated brief containing 21 fictional case citations and other errors.
  • The sanction type was monetary fine, but the page gives no amount.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; federal appellate court.
  • No incident date is given; the page quotes the court on law-and-technology concerns.
Fined
A federal judge fined Lenden Webb for failing to supervise another lawyer at his firm who filed court papers containing AI-fabricated citations.
Lenden Webb · Lenden Webb · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Lenden Webb was sanctioned.
  • Another lawyer at Webb’s firm filed papers with AI-fabricated citations.
  • Webb was fined for failing to supervise that lawyer.
  • The case was in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
  • The article says the underlying filing contained fabricated citations, but it does not name the AI tool or the amount.
Referred to the bar
Counsel submitted an AI-generated brief with fabricated citations, and the Minnesota Tax Court referred counsel to disciplinary authorities.
Delano Crossing v. Wright · Minnesota Tax Court · MN
news.bloombergtax.com ↗
The file →
  • Delano Crossing v. Wright was named as a specific incident.
  • Counsel submitted an AI-generated brief with fabricated citations.
  • The court referred counsel to disciplinary authorities.
  • The court was the Minnesota Tax Court.
  • The page says the brief was AI-generated but names no tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
The complainant admitted his WRC complaint was generated using AI and not fully reviewed, and the adjudicator gave his evidence reduced weight without imposing a sanction.
Ferko v. Beyond Reach Limited · Workplace Relations Commission
““While assistance in preparing complaints is not improper, a complainant remains responsible for the accuracy of allegations made on his behalf.””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Ferko v. Beyond Reach Limited before the Workplace Relations Commission.
  • The complaint was prepared by his sister using AI and was not fully verified.
  • The adjudicator reduced the weight of his evidence; no sanction was stated.
  • Workplace Relations Commission, Ireland.
  • Date not given; the decision emphasized responsibility for accuracy.
Caught, not sanctioned
A respondent said the complainant’s prehearing documents were generated by AI and were inadmissible; the adjudicator noted the materials’ poor quality but imposed no sanction.
Goncalves v. Valshan Unlimited · Workplace Relations Commission
““Unfortunately, for me at least, the tangential scattergun, smorgasbord approaches and references coupled with euphemisms formed outside of Europe approaches of this tool were a poor second to human oversight, I have come to expect and anticipate in actual statement and representation during a case.””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Goncalves v. Valshan Unlimited before the Workplace Relations Commission.
  • AI was alleged in prehearing documents; the adjudicator discussed their quality.
  • No sanction was imposed in the excerpt.
  • Workplace Relations Commission, Ireland.
  • Date not given; the adjudicator criticized the tool’s output and human oversight.
Fined $2K ChatGPT
An attorney filed a pleading citing at least six nonexistent cases, and Judge Martínez fined him $1,500 and ordered ethics training and bar reporting.
Unnamed New Mexico attorney · unnamed New Mexico attorney · U.S. Magistrate Judge Damian Martínez · NM
“The six cases were fake and likely the handiwork of a ChatGPT or similar artificial intelligence (AI) program’s hallucinations,”
govtech.com ↗
The file →
  • An unnamed New Mexico attorney was sanctioned for fake citations.
  • He filed a pleading with at least six nonexistent cases.
  • Judge Martínez fined him $1,500 and required bar reporting and AI ethics training.
  • U.S. Magistrate Judge Damian Martínez, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
  • Last year; the article says the fake cases were likely from ChatGPT or a similar AI program.
Warned ChatGPT
A lawyer’s suspected AI use led to fake cases being cited before the tribunal, and the tribunal warned that uploading confidential client documents to ChatGPT breached privilege.
Munir v. Secretary of State for the Home Department · Immigration and Asylum Chamber
blakes.com ↗
The file →
  • Munir v. Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a lawyer suspected of using AI-generated fake cases.
  • The lawyer said he did not know how the fake cases appeared in his submissions.
  • The tribunal warned that uploading confidential client documents into an open-source AI tool breaches client confidentiality and waives privilege.
  • Immigration and Asylum Chamber (U.K.).
  • The page says the lawyer admitted putting client letters and other confidential material in ChatGPT.

Showing 261–270 of 858.

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