legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
53
Incidents tracked
19
Incidents in 2026
$5,237
In fines, where reported
1 of 53 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 26 of 53 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 6 CoCounsel 1 Gemini 1 Google AI 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 53 incidents. Clear filters

Outcome unclear ChatGPT
Two barristers attempted to rely on fake cases generated by ChatGPT in their submissions to the court.
Mata v Avianca 22-cv-1461(PKC)
“"Many harms flow from the submission of fake [judgments]. The opposing party wastes time and money in exposing the deception. The Court's time is taken from other important endeavors. The client may be deprived of arguments based on authentic judicial precedents. There is potential harm to the reputation of judges and courts whose names are falsely invoked as authors of the bogus opinions and to the reputation of a party attributed with fictional conduct. It promotes cynicism about the legal profession and the…judicial system. And a future litigant may be tempted to defy a judicial ruling by disingenuously claiming doubt about its authenticity."”
burges-salmon.com ↗
The file →
  • In Mata v Avianca, two barristers sought to rely on AI-generated fake cases.
  • The barristers presented fabricated case law created by ChatGPT.
  • The article does not specify a sanction type or amount.
  • The incident occurred in a US federal court, with Judge P. Kevin Castel presiding.
  • The incident date is not specified, but ChatGPT was the AI tool used, and Judge Castel emphasized the seriousness of submitting fake judgments.
Outcome unclear ChatGPT
Mr. Sauve filed a new federal complaint using ChatGPT and Claude that was described as a fake case littered with hallucinated citations in violation of court rules.
Sauve · Mr. Sauve · federal court
nytimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Mr. Sauve filed a new federal complaint.
  • The pleading used ChatGPT and Claude and was described as a fake case.
  • The page does not state any sanction or amount.
  • The court is identified only as federal court.
  • No date or judge name is given; the article says the complaint had hallucinated citations.
Outcome unclear
The article only says the recent federal decision in Johnson v. involved fabricated or hallucinated citations, but it gives no named lawyer, firm, or sanction details.
Johnson v.
jdsupra.com ↗
The file →
  • The article mentions Johnson v. as a recent federal decision.
  • It discusses fabricated or hallucinated citations in briefs.
  • No lawyer, firm, or judge is named on the page.
  • No sanction, amount, or order date is provided.
  • No AI tool or quoted judicial language appears in the excerpt.
Outcome unclear 2026-07-29
Plaintiff, acting pro se, cited fabricated case law in her response, which the court determined did not exist, leading to an Order to Show Cause.
Danielle Maloit v. Frank Daniel Maloit · D. Colorado · CO
aivortex.io ↗
The file →
  • Danielle Maloit, acting pro se, in Danielle Maloit v. Frank Daniel Maloit
  • Plaintiff cited fabricated case law and misrepresented authority in her response, which the court determined did not exist (AI-generated hallucination).
  • The outcome was an Order to Show Cause; no specific sanction amount recorded.
  • The incident occurred in the D. Colorado court, federal jurisdiction, Colorado.
  • The incident date is 2026-07-29, and AI (implied, unspecified) was the source of the fabrications.
Outcome unclear 2026-06-23
A lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law, with no reported sanction outcome.
Rodney Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. · N.D. Texas · TX
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Rodney Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a lawyer was identified.
  • The lawyer submitted filings that included fabricated case law, implying AI involvement.
  • No specific sanction outcome was reported for this incident.
  • The incident took place in a federal court, the Northern District of Texas.
  • On June 23, 2026, the court noted the fabricated case law but the outcome regarding sanctions is not specified.
Outcome unclear 2026-06-23
A lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law, leading to an order to explain.
Compania General de Combustibles S.A., et al. v. RGR Global Logistics, LLC, et al. · S.D. Texas · TX
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Compania General de Combustibles S.A., et al. v. RGR Global Logistics, LLC, et al., a lawyer faced judicial inquiry.
  • The lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law, indicative of AI misuse.
  • The court issued an order to explain the fabricated content.
  • The incident occurred in a federal court, the Southern District of Texas.
  • On June 23, 2026, the court ordered an explanation after discovering the fabricated case law.
Outcome unclear 2026-06-23
A lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated and misrepresented case law, leading to an order to show cause.
Xinyue Hippe v. Retention Brands, LLC · E.D. Wisconsin · WI
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Xinyue Hippe v. Retention Brands, LLC, a lawyer was under court scrutiny.
  • The lawyer submitted filings with fabricated and misrepresented case law, suggesting AI-generated content.
  • The court issued an order to show cause regarding the problematic filings.
  • The incident occurred in a federal court, the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
  • On June 23, 2026, an order to show cause was issued after the discovery of fabricated and misrepresented case law.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.