legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
858
Incidents tracked
265
Incidents in 2026
$2,417,608
In fines, where reported
214 of 858 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 450 of 858 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 ClearBrief 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 125 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 56 Filing dismissed 37 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
Warned ChatGPT
Two lawyers filed a brief with non-existent cases; the High Court warned of severe sanctions after ChatGPT was found to have been used.
High Court of Justice in London warning matter · High Court of Justice in London
“The technology was “not capable of conducting reliable legal research.””
posteo.de ↗
The file →
  • Two lawyers submitted a brief citing cases that could not be found.
  • One lawyer had asked ChatGPT for evidence supporting the claim.
  • The High Court warned of severe sanctions, not a monetary penalty.
  • High Court of Justice in London.
  • Last summer; judge said the tools can produce plausible but incorrect responses.
Fined $8K
Counsel conceded using AI and the court imposed $7,500 sanctions after five filings contained at least 23 fabricated cases.
In re Roisin · New York appellate court · NY
papers.ssrn.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Roisin and counsel were sanctioned in the first New York appellate AI sanctions case.
  • Five filings contained at least 23 fabricated cases after counsel used AI.
  • The court imposed $7,500 in sanctions against counsel.
  • New York appellate court in New York.
  • The page says counsel conceded AI use but does not name the tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
The First Department declined to impose sanctions after the defendant cited four nonexistent cases.
NewRez LLC v Morton · Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Department · NY
nycourts.gov ↗
The file →
  • NewRez LLC v Morton involved a defendant cited for using four nonexistent cases.
  • The page says the court declined to impose a sanction.
  • No monetary amount was imposed.
  • The court was the First Department of the New York Appellate Division.
  • The page gives no AI tool, date, or quoted judicial language.
Fined $250
A pro se filer submitted an AI-drafted brief citing a nonexistent case, and the Brooklyn-based New York state appeals court imposed a $250 sanction.
Brooklyn appeals court sanction of a pro se filer · Brooklyn-based New York state appeals court · NY
law.com ↗
The file →
  • A pro se filer in a Brooklyn appeals matter was sanctioned.
  • He filed an AI-drafted brief containing a nonexistent case citation.
  • The court imposed a $250 monetary sanction.
  • The sanction came from a Brooklyn-based New York state appeals court.
  • The article says the filer’s pro se status was no excuse, but names no AI tool or citation.
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.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Attorney Harp was ordered to produce his ChatGPT history so the court could determine whether he had submitted hallucinated AI quotations.
Attorney Harp · Attorney Harp · United States District Court, Northern District of California · CA
websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Harp was the lawyer under scrutiny.
  • The issue was whether he submitted hallucinated AI quotations to the court.
  • The court ordered him to produce his ChatGPT history.
  • United States District Court, Northern District of California.
  • No sanction amount was stated; the order was to investigate possible AI misuse.
Fined $110K
Two attorneys filed briefs with citations to non-existent cases and fabricated quotations, and U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke imposed a $110,000 penalty.
Two attorneys in federal court · U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke
govtech.com ↗
The file →
  • Two attorneys in federal court
  • Briefs cited non-existent cases and fabricated quotations
  • Judge Mark D. Clarke imposed a $110,000 penalty
  • Federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke
  • Date not given; the article identifies the judge and total penalty
Fined $8K
An attorney filed a legal brief with AI-generated fabrications, and the Oregon Court of Appeals imposed an $8,000 sanction.
Oregon Court of Appeals sanctions attorney for AI-generated fabrications in legal brief · Oregon Court of Appeals · OR
bizjournals.com ↗
The file →
  • An attorney was sanctioned in Oregon Court of Appeals.
  • The brief contained AI-generated fabrications in legal citations.
  • The court imposed an $8,000 monetary sanction.
  • The matter was before the Oregon Court of Appeals in Oregon.
  • The page says it was the first such penalty in the state.
Caught, not sanctioned
A Manhattan big-law firm sent SDNY a letter apologizing for briefs that used fake citations generated by an unnamed AI program, and the court sanctioned the misuse.
In re: [unnamed Manhattan firm letter to SDNY] · a prominent big-law firm in Manhattan · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
lbkmlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • A prominent big-law firm in Manhattan was involved in the SDNY letter.
  • The firm apologized for using fake citations provided by an unnamed AI program.
  • The page does not state a monetary sanction; it describes an apology to the court.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, New York.
  • No date is given; the article says the firm’s review process missed the inaccurate AI citations.

Showing 291–300 of 858.

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