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
Fined
Wright filed briefs with fake cases and fabricated quotations in a discrimination suit against the Phoenix Suns, and Judge Murray Snow ordered her to pay some attorneys’ fees and take ethics training.
Phoenix Suns lawsuit · Sheree Wright · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · AZ
“U.S. District Judge Murray Snow called Wright’s explanation a “convoluted tale.””
azfamily.com ↗
The file →
  • Phoenix Suns discrimination lawsuit against Sheree Wright
  • Wright filed legal briefs with AI hallucinations, including fake cases and quotations
  • Judge ordered her to cover some attorneys’ fees and complete AI ethics training
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona; federal court in Arizona
  • Date not stated; ruling was forwarded to the Arizona State Bar and district and magistrate judges in Arizona
Fined $5K
A Camden County attorney filed a motion with AI-generated fake citations and was ordered to pay $5,000 in sanctions.
Unnamed Camden County attorney sanction · Unnamed Camden County attorney · Camden County court · NJ
nj.com ↗
The file →
  • Unnamed Camden County attorney was sanctioned in a case described on the page.
  • The attorney used artificial intelligence to file a motion with fake citations.
  • The court ordered $5,000 in sanctions.
  • The matter was in Camden County, New Jersey.
  • The page gives no date, judge name, or AI tool.
Referred to the bar
A legal practitioner filed court submissions with AI-generated nonexistent citations, and the court referred the matter to the South Australian Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner.
Pasuengos v. Minister for Immigration
advocateprakhar.com ↗
The file →
  • Pasuengos v. Minister for Immigration involved a legal practitioner.
  • Court submissions contained AI-hallucinated case citations that did not exist.
  • The court referred the practitioner to the Conduct Commissioner.
  • Australian federal court.
  • Feb. 2026; the page says the referral made it a significant AI-hallucination disciplinary case.
Fined
A pro se plaintiff filed fictitious AI citations and then gave a false explanation; the court sanctioned her for the Rule 11 breach.
Zhang v. Driscoll · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
“simply not credible”
advocateprakhar.com ↗
The file →
  • Zhang v. Driscoll involved a pro se plaintiff in N.D. Cal.
  • She filed fictitious case citations and blamed 'editing errors.'
  • The court sanctioned her for a Rule 11 violation.
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
  • Jan. 2026; the court found her explanation 'simply not credible.'
Warned
A lawyer filed submissions with inaccurate, apparently AI-generated authorities that had not been independently verified; the Commission warned of disciplinary or procedural consequences.
Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education) · Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
judiciary.sc ↗
The file →
  • Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education); a lawyer’s submissions before the Commission
  • Submissions contained inaccurate and apparently AI-generated legal authorities and propositions
  • The Commission warned that AI use can lead to disciplinary or procedural consequences
  • Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, Queensland
  • 2025; the decision stressed counsel remain personally responsible for all authorities
Referred to the bar
A lawyer used AI to generate court submissions with fake case citations, lost the case, and was referred to the Law Society for discipline.
Avinash Singh's unnamed submission · Avinash Singh · not stated
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Avinash Singh is the lawyer described on the page.
  • He used AI to generate submissions containing case citations that did not exist.
  • He lost the case and was referred to the Law Society for professional disciplinary proceedings.
  • The court/jurisdiction is not stated on the page.
  • The page does not name the AI tool or give the order date.
Fined $6K
A complainant’s final written submissions cited non-existent cases, and the Employment Relations Authority ordered further costs against the complainant.
Wellington physiotherapy company grievance case · Employment Relations Authority
newsroom.co.nz ↗
The file →
  • The incident arose in a personal grievance case against a Wellington physiotherapy company.
  • Despite reminders, the final submissions cited cases that did not exist.
  • The complainant was ordered to pay $6500 to the business.
  • Court: Employment Relations Authority in Wellington, New Zealand.
  • Date not stated; the article describes it as a case being handled by the Authority.
Fined
The Supreme Court refused leave in four applications after finding many cited authorities were irrelevant or non-existent AI hallucinations, awarding $2,500 costs to each respondent.
Liyun Chen v Goodmore Investments and Tawa Trade Finance · Supreme Court of New Zealand
““Many of Ms Chen’s authorities are irrelevant or do not exist – in either case appearing to be hallucinations of a generative artificial intelligence application.””
newsroom.co.nz ↗
The file →
  • Chen v Goodmore Investments (NZ) Ltd involved AI-hallucinated and irrelevant citations.
  • A party presented authorities that did not exist or were completely irrelevant.
  • The court awarded costs of $2,500 to each respondent.
  • Supreme Court of New Zealand.
  • Decision issued in May 2026 highlighting the risks of generative AI in court filings.

Showing 271–280 of 858.

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