legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
853
Incidents tracked
265
Incidents in 2026
$2,387,608
In fines, where reported
211 of 853 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 853 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 147 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 248 Caught, not sanctioned 198 Warned 124 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 56 Filing dismissed 37 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
Caught, not sanctioned
The Home Office refused an asylum claim relying on a Morocco CPIN that the judge said bore hallmarks of AI hallucination and may not exist.
Moroccan woman's asylum claim · Home Office · UK Upper Tribunal
“if the citation was an AI 'hallucination', that would be 'analogous to relying on bogus evidence' and represent a procedural irregularity.”
aiweekly.co ↗
The file →
  • Home Office refused a Moroccan woman's asylum claim.
  • The refusal relied on a Morocco CPIN dated July 2021 that could not be located.
  • No sanction was imposed in the article; the judge flagged a possible procedural irregularity.
  • UK Upper Tribunal, not further specified.
  • The judge said the letter bore hallmarks consistent with artificial intelligence.
Caught, not sanctioned
The Supreme Court set aside NCLT and NCLAT orders that cited non-existent judgments, described as likely AI hallucinations.
National Company Law Tribunal / National Company Law Appellate Tribunal orders · Supreme Court of India
theweek.in ↗
The file →
  • NCLT and NCLAT orders were set aside by the Supreme Court
  • The tribunals cited judgments that did not exist
  • The article describes the false precedents as likely AI hallucinations
  • The ruling came from the Supreme Court of India
  • The page gives no lawyer or firm name and no specific citation strings
Caught, not sanctioned
Defense counsel filed a sanctions motion alleging plaintiffs used inaccurate AI-generated citations in discovery in an Uber passenger sexual assault bellwether case.
MDL No. 3084 · Northern District of California · CA
yipinstitute.org ↗
The file →
  • Defense counsel alleged plaintiffs used inaccurate AI-generated citations in discovery.
  • The page says a sanctions motion was filed, but no sanction order is described.
  • Northern District of California, federal court.
  • No date, no named judge, and no AI tool are given.
Warned
The Arizona Court of Appeals held that filing fake AI-generated cases can draw sanctions regardless of the filer's intent.
AZ Court of Appeals: Citing Fake AI-Generated Cases Can Get You Sanctioned, No Matter Your Intent · Arizona Court of Appeals · AZ
trxchange.com ↗
The file →
  • Arizona Court of Appeals matter about fake AI-generated cases
  • A filing cited fabricated AI cases and the court said intent did not matter
  • Sanction consequence described as sanctionable conduct; no amount stated
  • Arizona Court of Appeals in Arizona state court
  • July 2026 roundup; the article names no attorney, firm, or AI tool
Caught, not sanctioned
A party quoted text from paragraph 150 of a decision that only has 124 paragraphs, and the tribunal flagged the AI misuse.
Re X Corp. · British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal · BC
slaw.ca ↗
The file →
  • Re X Corp.; a party filed the material
  • The party quoted a block of text from paragraph 150 of a decision with only 124 paragraphs
  • No sanction is reported on the page; the tribunal flagged the misuse
  • British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal, British Columbia
  • 2025 BCCRT 1228; the article describes it as a fake quote from a real decision
Reprimanded
The Georgia Supreme Court found an order contained non-existent or unsupported citations and admonished and suspended the prosecutor for six months.
Payne vs. State · Supreme Court of Georgia · GA
“The state justices urged trial judges to examine proposed court orders “with the understanding that artificial intelligence software, with all of its potential risks and benefits, may have been used”.”
blogs.lse.ac.uk ↗
The file →
  • Payne vs. State involved an order with non-existent citations.
  • The proposed order was prepared by the prosecutor with help from an LLM tool.
  • The court admonished the prosecutor and suspended her for six months.
  • Supreme Court of Georgia; Georgia.
  • The page says she did not cross-check the citations before submitting them.
Caught, not sanctioned
The appellate court reversed a trial ruling that relied on fictitious case citations copied from a defense filing.
H. C. v. Contreras · California 5th District Court of Appeal · CA
blogs.lse.ac.uk ↗
The file →
  • H. C. v. Contreras involved fictitious case citations in a trial ruling.
  • The ruling appeared to have been copied from the defense attorney’s filing.
  • The appellate court reversed the trial judge’s ruling.
  • California 5th District Court of Appeal; California.
  • Late May 2026; the opinion said the trial court abused its discretion.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Michael Best was cited as an example of a lawyer or firm facing sanction risk for submitting AI-generated filings with fabricated citations.
Michael Best · Michael Best
lexology.com ↗
The file →
  • Michael Best was named on the page as a real incident reference.
  • The page says it involved AI-generated filings with fabricated citations.
  • No specific sanction amount or order is stated on the page.
  • No court, judge, or location is identified on the page.
  • The page links the problem to ChatGPT and fabricated legal guidance.
Fined $3K
Cho filed a reply brief with nonexistent cases and fabricated propositions from generative AI, and the court sanctioned him and struck the brief.
OTG New York, Inc. v. Ottogi America, Inc. · Sukjin Henry Cho · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Magistrate Judge José R. Almonte · NJ
“Mr. Cho has confirmed that he indeed used AI, which provided him with hallucinated case law and propositions that he then incorporated into his reply brief without verification.”
theinternetninja.com ↗
The file →
  • OTG New York, Inc. v. Ottogi America, Inc.; Sukjin Henry Cho was sanctioned.
  • Cho filed a reply brief using AI-hallucinated case law and propositions.
  • The court imposed a $3,000 Rule 11(c) monetary sanction.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; Magistrate Judge José R. Almonte.
  • No AI product was named; the court said the AI provided hallucinated case law without verification.

Showing 321–330 of 853.

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