legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

Every incident where a lawyer got caught filing AI-fabricated citations. The Hall of Shame.

Embed this
851
Incidents tracked
262
Incidents in 2026
$2,417,608
In fines, where reported
214 of 851 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 446 of 851 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 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 126 Referred to the bar 98 Reprimanded 85 Outcome unclear 53 Filing dismissed 36 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
Fined $1K Irys 2026-09-15
Los Angeles County Judge Elizabeth L. Bradley sanctioned Jacquelene A. Robinson $999.99 for citing AI-generated nonexistent cases and fabricated quotes across five motions.
Fa’alagilagi Meni-Siliga v. A’s Contractor, Inc., et al. · Jacquelene A. Robinson · Cal. Super. Ct. L.A. County · CA
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Meni-Siliga v. A's Contractor Inc. et al. involving Jacquelene A. Robinson of Musick Peeler & Garrett LLP.
  • Robinson filed five motions containing AI-generated fake cases, fabricated quotes, and false statements of law.
  • The court imposed a monetary fine of $999.99, which fell just below the $1,000 threshold for mandatory reporting to the state bar.
  • The incident occurred in Los Angeles County Superior Court, California.
  • The attorney used the AI tool Irys and subsequently attended an AI legal ethics class before submitting an apology.
Outcome unclear
Relator's counsel Jenna Rohr Conley admitted to citing two fictitious non-existent cases that misled the court.
ED114731 · Jenna Rohr Conley · Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District · MO
“Relator's counsel, Jenna Rohr Conley, cited two cases that she now admits do not exist. These fictitious citations misled this Court”
websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com ↗
The file →
  • Case ED114731 involving relator's counsel Jenna Rohr Conley.
  • Counsel cited two fictitious non-existent cases in filings.
  • Sanction type and amount not specified in the text.
  • Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.
  • Counsel admitted the citations do not exist and misled the court.
Caught, not sanctioned
The court declined to add new sanctions against attorney Castro, noting previous AI citation issues had improved.
Leafwell, Inc. v. The Doc App, Inc. · Castro · M.D. Florida · FL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Leafwell, Inc. v. The Doc App, Inc. involved attorney Castro failing to review AI-generated filings
  • Prior filings contained fabricated citations, but the attorney's citations had improved
  • The court declined to add new sanctions, keeping existing penalties from a prior order in place
  • The ruling was issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
  • The decision was issued on 9 June 2026
Outcome unclear
The court set aside a Rs-425.28 crore customs penalty after finding reliance on non-existent cases and AI-hallucinated propositions.
Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India & Anr. · Supreme Court of India
deccanherald.com ↗
The file →
  • Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India & Anr.
  • Submissions relied on non-existent cases and AI-hallucinated propositions.
  • The Supreme Court set aside a Rs-425.28 crore penalty as a result.
  • The incident took place before the Supreme Court of India.
  • The decision reaffirmed that attorneys cannot rely on fabricated AI precedents.
Reprimanded
A prosecutor was suspended from Supreme Court practice for six months after filing unverified AI-generated citations.
Payne v The State · Supreme Court of Georgia · GA
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Payne v The State involved a prosecutor using AI to draft court filings without verification.
  • Filings contained at least 9 non-existent or unsupported citations plus additional AI-generated authorities.
  • The Supreme Court of Georgia suspended the prosecutor's privilege to practice before it for 6 months.
  • The incident was resolved in the Supreme Court of Georgia.
  • The court required 12 additional hours of legal education on ethics and AI use.
Fined $5K ChatGPT 2026-09-11
Attorney Stephen D. Aarons was held in direct contempt and fined $5,000 after using ChatGPT to draft a murder appeal that contained fabricated witnesses and testimony.
Stephen Aarons · Stephen D. Aarons · New Mexico Supreme Court · NM
“So either you have buried your head in the sand ... and that’s an intentional choice to be uninformed, or you took a gamble, and neither of those are consistent with the code of conduct.”
yahoo.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Stephen D. Aarons was sanctioned by the court in connection with his representation of Oscar Renee Sandoval.
  • Aarons used ChatGPT to draft an appeal brief that fabricated four witnesses, invented testimony, and misrepresented legal authorities.
  • The court held Aarons in direct contempt, fined him $5,000, struck his briefs, barred him from appearing, and referred him to the Disciplinary Board.
  • The decision was handed down by the New Mexico Supreme Court in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
  • The sanction order was issued on September 9, 2026, after Aarons acknowledged relying on ChatGPT output without verifying it against the record.
Caught, not sanctioned
The Church of Scientology asked the California Supreme Court to review an appellate order that declined to sanction Boies Schiller Flexner LLP over AI citation errors.
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP · Boies Schiller Flexner LLP · California Supreme Court · CA
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Boies Schiller Flexner LLP faced review requests over AI citation errors in a California lawsuit.
  • The Church of Scientology alleged the firm submitted a brief containing artificial intelligence-generated citation errors.
  • An appellate court declined to impose sanctions on the law firm.
  • The Church of Scientology petitioned the California Supreme Court to review the refusal to sanction.
  • The underlying matter involves a harassment and retaliation suit pending against the Church of Scientology.
Reprimanded
A junior barrister was severely reprimanded for issuing documents filled with AI errors, including entirely fake cases.
Ayinde case
“There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused.”
sg.news.yahoo.com ↗
The file →
  • The Ayinde case involved an unnamed junior barrister who was severely reprimanded.
  • The barrister submitted legal documents filled with AI errors and entirely fake cases.
  • The court issued a severe reprimand and a clear warning regarding AI misuse.
  • The incident occurred in a UK court jurisdiction.
  • The ruling took place in June of the previous year.
Outcome unclear ChatGPT
Two lawyers submitted non-existent judicial opinions with fake citations created by ChatGPT and continued defending them when questioned, resulting in sanctions.
Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C. · Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“the law firm of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C. … abandoned their responsibilities when they submitted non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations created by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT”
dailycaller.com ↗
The file →
  • Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C. lawyers were sanctioned by a New York federal judge.
  • The attorneys submitted non-existent court cases and citations generated by ChatGPT.
  • The court imposed sanctions after the firm continued defending the fake cases.
  • The case took place in New York federal court.
  • A June 2023 order noted the firm abandoned its responsibilities by using ChatGPT fabrications.

Showing 21–30 of 851.

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