legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
37
Incidents tracked
10
Incidents in 2026
$99,597
In fines, where reported
3 of 37 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 24 of 37 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 10 Centient AI 1 LegalAI 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 21–30 of 37 incidents. Clear filters

Filing dismissed 2025-10-23
ASBCA struck the contractor’s reply brief and denied leave to revise it after finding more than 70% of its citations were inaccurate due to AI use.
Huffman Construction · Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
smithlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Huffman Construction was sanctioned by the ASBCA.
  • Counsel admitted using AI, which led to fictitious case citations and bad record cites.
  • The Board struck the reply brief and denied leave to file a revised brief.
  • Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, federal forum.
  • Oct. 23, 2025; over 70% of the brief’s citations were inaccurate.
Filing dismissed 2025-10-07
Defense counsel's nullity appeal was rejected without substantive reply due to reliance on artificial intelligence fabrications.
OGH 14 Os 95/25i · OGH
llms-for-lawyers.com ↗
The file →
  • OGH 14 Os 95/25i involving defense counsel in Austria.
  • Appeal relied on invented legal material created by artificial intelligence.
  • Nullity appeal was rejected outright without substantive court response.
  • Supreme Court of Justice (OGH, Austria).
  • Dated October 7, 2025; court ruled filing evaded substantive judicial review.
Filing dismissed 2025-10-01
ASBCA struck a law firm's reply brief after finding over 70% of the citations were inaccurate and included fabricated citations.
ASBCA reply brief sanction (October 2025) · Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
“The ASBCA called the safeguards “woefully insufficient.””
burr.com ↗
The file →
  • An unnamed law firm was sanctioned by the ASBCA for Gen-AI misuse.
  • Its reply brief used AI technology and more than 70% of the citations were inaccurate.
  • ASBCA struck the reply brief as the sanction.
  • Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, federal.
  • October 2025; government counsel and the Board found even more fabrications than the government had flagged.
Filing dismissed ChatGPT 2025-09-30
A relator disclosed an expert report with generative-AI hallucinations, and the federal judge dismissed the FCA suit after related sanctions motions were filed.
U.S. ex rel. Khoury v. Intermountain Healthcare Inc et al. · Gary Giampetruzzi, Jessica R. Montes and Vanna Mavromatis · U.S. District Court for the District of Utah · UT
paulhastings.com ↗
The file →
  • U.S. ex rel. Khoury v. Intermountain Healthcare Inc et al. involved relator-side counsel and an expert report.
  • The report contained generative AI hallucinations, including bogus deposition testimony and fictitious quotes from government manuals.
  • On 2025-09-30, the federal judge granted the United States’ motion to intervene and dismiss the case.
  • The case was dismissed with prejudice to the relator and without prejudice to the United States.
  • District of Utah; the article does not name the AI tool, but says the expert used a generative AI tool and the parties had motion practice over sanctions.
Filing dismissed ChatGPT 2025-09-25
Oready, LLC filed protest briefs with fabricated, mismatched, and misquoted GAO citations, and GAO dismissed the protests as an abuse of process.
Oready, LLC · Government Accountability Office
“Our decision here is not based on the use of AI as a method of research; it is based on the protester’s repeated reliance on non-existent citations or decisions without verifying their correctness and applicability to the arguments being presented.”
centrelawgroup.com ↗
The file →
  • Oready, LLC was dismissed after filing AI-tainted protest briefs.
  • The filings included fabricated GAO decisions, mismatched citations, and misquoted holdings.
  • GAO dismissed the protests as an abuse of process.
  • Government Accountability Office; federal procurement protest forum.
  • Sept. 25, 2025; GAO said the issue was unverified non-existent citations, not AI use itself.
Filing dismissed 2025-09-11
The Supreme Court set aside NCLT and NCLAT orders after finding that relied-upon precedents were fabricated or contained non-existent passages.
Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr. · NCLT · Supreme Court of India
“a judicial or quasi-judicial decision, which is, in whole or in part, based on falsified (hallucinated) material, is, in law, a subversion of the rule of law.”

Cases that don't exist

  • (2015) 2 SCC 1
casemine.com ↗
The file →
  • Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.; NCLT relied on fake precedents.
  • The tribunal used fake, non-existent, or AI-generated hallucinated legal precedents.
  • The Supreme Court set aside the NCLT order and the NCLAT judgment; no monetary sanction is stated.
  • Supreme Court of India; the article names the court but no judge.
  • Decided 2025-09-11; the Court said there is zero tolerance for AI-generated legal material without verification.
Filing dismissed 2025-09-01
GAO dismissed four Oready protest filings after repeated Gen-AI misuse and hallucinated citations in the protests.
Oready, LLC bid protest (September 2025 GAO decision) · Oready, LLC · Government Accountability Office
burr.com ↗
The file →
  • Oready, LLC was sanctioned in a GAO bid protest decision after repeated Gen-AI misuse.
  • The filings contained hallucinated citations and other inaccurate legal assertions.
  • GAO dismissed four protest filings as the sanction.
  • Government Accountability Office, federal procurement tribunal.
  • September 2025; the report says Oready had filed 15 pro se protests in eight months.
Filing dismissed $86K ChatGPT 2025-08-01
Lawyer James Martin Paul filed briefs with hallucinated AI citations in ByoPlanet cases; the court dismissed the federal matters, awarded fees, and referred him to the Florida Bar.
ByoPlanet International v. Johansson and Gilstrap · James Martin Paul · Southern District of Florida · FL
“When he argued the fine was too high, the court shot back that caving to his arguments “would only benefit serial hallucinators.””
relativity.com ↗
The file →
  • ByoPlanet Int’l, LLC v. Johansson and related matters; attorney James Martin Paul
  • Paul used hallucinated citations across eight matters and even filed fabricated quotations after being put on notice
  • Judge Leibowitz dismissed the four federal matters without prejudice and without leave to amend, awarded fees and costs, and referred Paul to the Florida Bar
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Florida
  • July 17, 2025; Paul told the court he and his paralegal used ChatGPT
Filing dismissed 2025-08-01
CBCA dismissed Oready's appeal without prejudice after records showed the certified claim included hallucinated case law.
Oready, LLC CBCA appeal (August 2025) · Oready, LLC · Civilian Board of Contract Appeals
burr.com ↗
The file →
  • Oready, LLC was identified in a CBCA appeal involving hallucinated case law.
  • The appeal records showed Gen-AI misuse in the certified claim.
  • CBCA dismissed the appeal without prejudice.
  • Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, federal.
  • August 2025; the appeal was also dismissed because it was premature.
Filing dismissed 2025-07-02
A pro se defendant filed pleadings loaded with 42 nonexistent citations, and the court dismissed the motion to strike after finding the citations were AI-hallucinated.
Powhatan County School Board v. Skinger · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · VA
““The fact that her citations to nonexistent legal authority are so pervasive, in volume and in location throughout her filings, can lead to only one plausible conclusion: that an AI program hallucinated them in an effort to meet whatever [the defendant’s] desired outcome was based on the prompt that she put into the AI program,””
thomsonreuters.com ↗
The file →
  • Powhatan County School Board v. Skinger involved a pro se defendant's filings
  • The filings contained 42 citations to nonexistent legal authorities
  • The court dismissed the motion to strike the original opinion from the record
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
  • The court said an AI program hallucinated the citations; no AI tool was named
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.