legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
98
Incidents tracked
30
Incidents in 2026
$386,941
In fines, where reported
14 of 98 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 57 of 98 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 17 Claude 2 CoCounsel 2 LEAP 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 ChatGPT-4 1 Copilot 1 GPT-3.5 1 Gemini 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 98 incidents. Clear filters

Referred to the bar
Birmingham firm City Laws lodged a judicial-review application with several false citations and was referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
City Laws · City Laws · Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber
“It matters not how such citation errors come about.”
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • City Laws, a Birmingham immigration law firm, filed an application for judicial review with false citations.
  • The firm said the grounds were drafted by Waheed Malik using an outdated precedent, blogs and personal notes.
  • The tribunal referred senior solicitor Zubair Rasheed to the SRA.
  • Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber; judge Fiona Lindsley.
  • November 2025 decision, published on 24 February 2026; the tribunal said it was about supervision and not misleading the tribunal.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT
A solicitor submitted a filing with a fake case name and false citations; the Upper Tribunal said it would have referred him to regulators but for his self-reporting.
Tahir Mehmood Mohammed · Tahir Mehmood Mohammed · Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber
“It matters not how such citation errors come about.”
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Tahir Mehmood Mohammed, a solicitor at TMF Immigration Lawyers, filed false citations.
  • He said he may have used Google AI mode and had also put client material into ChatGPT.
  • The tribunal would have referred him to the IAA and SRA but for self-reporting.
  • Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber; judge Fiona Lindsley.
  • November 2025 decision, published on 24 February 2026; the judge said errors matter regardless of whether they came from a trainee or ChatGPT.
Referred to the bar
A Queensland solicitor was referred to the Legal Services Commission after a filing contained fake citations and may have been AI-generated.
Lyle v. Queensland Rural and Industrial Development Authority · A Queensland solicitor · District Court of Queensland
lawyerly.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Lyle v. Queensland Rural and Industrial Development Authority; a Queensland solicitor
  • A filing contained fake citations and may have been AI-generated
  • Referred to the Legal Services Commission
  • District Court of Queensland
  • No AI tool or date was stated on the page
Referred to the bar
A pupil barrister filed a brief with five fake citations and a false statute text, and a solicitor filed an application with 18 made-up citations; Dame Sharp referred both to regulators.
In June 2025 two separate cases before the English High Court · English High Court
jmc-legal.com ↗
The file →
  • English High Court cases involving a pupil barrister and a solicitor
  • They filed hallucinated citations and a wrong statute text in court papers
  • Both were referred to their regulators by Dame Sharp
  • English High Court, England
  • June 2025; the article says the solicitor used "publicly available artificial intelligence tools"
Referred to the bar
A licensed attorney's similar AI misuse would have ended in sanctions, but the attorney had already been referred to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
In re R. L. v. Anezka · Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District · IL
tresslerllp.com ↗
The file →
  • In re R. L. v. Anezka was cited as another AI-citation incident.
  • The article says similar conduct by a licensed attorney would have ended in sanctions.
  • The attorney had already been referred to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
  • Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District; state court in Illinois.
  • The page gives no exact sanction date; it says the referral had already happened.
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.
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.
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.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.