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
An unrepresented respondent acknowledged using AI to assist with submissions containing fabricated legal authorities, prompting the court to reiterate the duty to cite genuine cases.
The States of Guernsey v Steven Terrance Ogier · Royal Court of Guernsey
“of indisputable importance for matters”
collascrill.com ↗
The file →
  • The States of Guernsey v Steven Terrance Ogier involved an unrepresented respondent.
  • The respondent used AI to assist with submissions that included fabricated legal authorities.
  • The Royal Court of Guernsey warned against AI hallucinations infecting legal arguments.
  • The court belonged to the Royal Court of Guernsey.
  • The case [2026] GRC030 emphasized that all parties owe a duty to ensure cited cases are genuine.
Reprimanded
An attorney filed a brief in Texas with false or incongruous citations from unreviewed AI-generated documents, leading to reciprocal discipline in New York.
Matter of Zareh · First Department · NY
nysba.org ↗
The file →
  • Matter of Zareh involved the plaintiff’s attorney
  • Texas court found the citations and brief were unreviewed AI-generated documents
  • New York imposed reciprocal public censure
  • First Department, New York state proceeding
  • The article says the Texas sanction was a public reprimand
Fined $500
The court fined a respondent $500 after a filing contained legal arguments that could not be verified in Oregon case law.
[second Oregon Supreme Court case not named on page] · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
ijpr.org ↗
The file →
  • Oregon Supreme Court case; respondent was sanctioned for a filing.
  • The document referred to legal arguments that could not be verified in Oregon case law.
  • The court imposed a $500 fine and allowed resubmission.
  • Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon.
  • Friday ruling in June 2026; the page does not name the AI tool used.
Caught, not sanctioned
The court discussed AI disclosure duties after confronting hallucinations and 'misgroundings' in legal submissions.
Michaelis v Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB · Michaelis · unknown
gerberciano.com ↗
The file →
  • Michaelis v Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB is identified by name in the article.
  • The court addressed hallucinations and 'misgroundings' in AI-assisted legal submissions.
  • No sanction is described in the article for this decision.
  • The court is not identified by name in the article.
  • The article says the case discussed disclosure obligations relating to AI use.
Warned
A pro se defendant filed submissions with AI-generated arguments, incorrect citations, phantom cases, and fabricated quotations; the court found them frivolous and warned of sanctions.
Keefe v. BMakin Film LTD · BMakin Film LTD · Supreme Court, New York · NY
““Submissions that rely on non-existent cases generated by artificial intelligence, resulting in AI ‘hallucinations’ and cases that do not stand for the propositions alleged, are considered ‘frivolous conduct’ under 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 and are sanctionable.””
gerberciano.com ↗
The file →
  • Keefe v. BMakin Film LTD involved a pro se defendant's filings.
  • The submissions contained AI-generated arguments, incorrect citations, phantom cases, and fabricated quotations.
  • The court found the conduct frivolous and warned future violations would bring monetary sanctions.
  • The court was in New York state court.
  • The article quotes the court on non-existent AI-generated cases being sanctionable.
Caught, not sanctioned Gemini
An attorney cited an unrelated Supreme Court precedent and later said they had not properly reviewed it after searching with Google Gemini.
Ulsan District Court matter · an attorney at the Ulsan District Court · Ulsan District Court
koreaherald.com ↗
The file →
  • Ulsan District Court matter; an attorney at the Ulsan District Court
  • The attorney cited an unrelated Supreme Court precedent in a filing
  • The page reports no sanction, only the attorney's later acknowledgment
  • Ulsan District Court, South Korea
  • Published June 14, 2026; the attorney said the search was done using Google Gemini
Caught, not sanctioned
An attorney filed a brief citing a nonexistent Supreme Court precedent and then cited another nonexistent case when the court asked for clarification.
Daegu High Court matter · an attorney handling a case at the Daegu High Court · Daegu High Court
koreaherald.com ↗
The file →
  • Daegu High Court matter; an attorney handling a case there
  • The attorney filed a nonexistent Supreme Court precedent and then another nonexistent case
  • The page reports no sanction, only that the court sought clarification
  • Daegu High Court, South Korea
  • Published June 14, 2026; described in a Korean-language JoongAng Ilbo report
Caught, not sanctioned
The Oregon Supreme Court sanctioned litigants in two cases after AI-generated quotes and citations were filed.
Oregon Supreme Court sanctions two cases · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
bizjournals.com ↗
The file →
  • Two cases were sanctioned by the Oregon Supreme Court.
  • Litigants filed AI-fabricated quotes and citations.
  • The page does not state a specific sanction amount.
  • Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon.
  • The article says the orders were issued last week and were the first of their kind.

Showing 301–310 of 858.

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