legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
199
Incidents tracked
40
Incidents in 2026
$11,578
In fines, where reported
3 of 199 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 75 of 199 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 32 Gemini 4 Claude 2 Perplexity AI 2 AI Overviews 1 ChatGPT-4o 1 ChatOn 1 Eve 1 Grammarly 1 MX2.law 1 OpenCase 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

Showing 21–30 of 199 incidents. Clear filters

Caught, not sanctioned
A filing in Provo's matter allegedly contained fraudulent AI-generated citations, and the page says he was sanctioned or narrowly avoided sanction in the Supreme Court context.
Timothy Robert Provo · Timothy Robert Provo · U.S. Supreme Court
supremecourt.gov ↗
The file →
  • Timothy Robert Provo was the named lawyer/matter on the page.
  • The page says the case exposed fraudulent AI-generated citations in filings.
  • The sanction outcome is not specifically stated on the page excerpt.
  • The court named is the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • No AI tool, date, or quoted judge language is given in the excerpt.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT-4o
A Stanford professor relied on ChatGPT-4o to draft his declaration, which cited two nonexistent sources and misattributed an author's name, and the court struck it.
Minnesota state challenge · MN
legalnursepdx.com ↗
The file →
  • A Stanford professor on the state's side in the Minnesota challenge was involved.
  • He used ChatGPT-4o to help draft a declaration with two nonexistent sources and a misattributed name.
  • The court struck the declaration after plaintiffs sought exclusion.
  • Minnesota state court in a challenge to the state deepfakes law.
  • The page says the state sought a do-over citing excusable neglect.
Caught, not sanctioned Grammarly
An attorney withdrew after filing an opposition brief alleged to contain non-existent caselaw, fake quotations, and incorrect legal assertions.
Smith v. Athena Construction Group, Inc.
hlc.com ↗
The file →
  • Smith v. Athena Construction Group, Inc.; an attorney representing a relator
  • Opposition brief allegedly contained non-existent caselaw, fake quotations, and incorrect legal assertions
  • The attorney withdrew; no court sanction is stated on the page
  • Federal FCA matter; court not named on the page
  • Page says the attorney used Grammarly and Lexis+
Caught, not sanctioned
The page says a Queensland case involved AI-fabricated citations in materials filed on the applicant's behalf, but it is unclear whether the applicant was represented.
QWYN and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation and business) · Administrative Review Tribunal
qlsproctor.com.au ↗
The file →
  • QWYN and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation and business); an unclear Queensland matter.
  • Materials filed on the applicant's behalf reportedly contained AI-fabricated citations.
  • The page does not state a sanction order for this matter.
  • Administrative Review Tribunal; Queensland.
  • The article says it is not clear whether the applicant was represented.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Two lawyers filed a ChatGPT-generated brief with fabricated court opinions and quotes, and a judge sanctioned them.
Two lawyers sanctioned in 2023
miamidadebar.org ↗
The file →
  • Two lawyers were sanctioned in 2023.
  • They filed a brief generated by ChatGPT with fabricated court opinions and quotes.
  • The page says a judge sanctioned them, but gives no amount.
  • No court, judge, or location is identified on the page.
  • The page cites ChatGPT and warns it can ‘hallucinate’ and be wholly inaccurate.
Caught, not sanctioned
A condo owner filed an AI-generated submission with ghost citations and misquoted laws, and the Tribunal identified the hallucinations.
Janssen v. TSCC 1851 · Condominium Authority Tribunal
condoadviser.ca ↗
The file →
  • Janssen v. TSCC 1851 involved a condo owner before the Condominium Authority Tribunal.
  • He used an AI-generated submission with invented cases and misquoted laws.
  • The Tribunal identified the hallucinations; the post does not report a sanction.
  • The court was the Condominium Authority Tribunal in Ontario.
  • Published October 28, 2025; the article says the Tribunal had already warned the dispute likely fell outside its jurisdiction.
Caught, not sanctioned
A lawyer for MyPillow filed a brief with nearly 30 defective citations, and a federal judge in Colorado ruled on the filing.
MyPillow Inc. defamation case · a lawyer for MyPillow Inc · federal court in Colorado · CO
broadbandbreakfast.com ↗
The file →
  • MyPillow Inc.'s defamation case was singled out in the AP story.
  • A lawyer for MyPillow filed a brief containing nearly 30 defective citations.
  • The article says a federal judge in Colorado ruled on the filing.
  • The page reports the issue as AI-generated/hallucinated citations.
  • No sanction amount or named AI tool is given on the page.
Caught, not sanctioned
Justice J.F. Kenkel found erroneous case citations in defence counsel’s submissions and ordered new submissions without GenAI.
R v Chand · Ontario Court of Justice
“there would be a “discussion” at the end of the trial about how the initial submissions were prepared”
claytonrice.com ↗
The file →
  • R v Chand involved erroneous case citations in defence submissions.
  • The court ordered new submissions without using GenAI.
  • No monetary sanction was imposed.
  • Ontario Court of Justice.
  • The page gives no exact date; Justice J.F. Kenkel said there would be a discussion at trial's end.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Michael Long filed RTKL appeals and court papers with fabricated case citations, and the Borough challenged the filings in county court.
Michael Long · Michael Long · Northampton County Court of Common Pleas · PA

Cases that don't exist

  • Grove v. OOR
  • Pennsylvania State Education v. Commonwealth
  • IN RE S.S., 651 A.2d 174

+5 more

bathborough.org ↗
The file →
  • Michael Long was the requestor in the Bath Borough RTKL dispute.
  • He submitted legal filings and appeals containing fictitious or irrelevant citations.
  • The page reports no sanction order against him, only that the Borough challenged his filings.
  • The matter was in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania.
  • The article says Long used AI and even bragged about using ChatGPT.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.