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
Reprimanded
A lawyer filed fake and hallucinated citations in a brief and was reprimanded by the U.S. appeals court.
Lawyer’s use of “fake and hallucinated” citations gets reprimand from U.S. appeals court · U.S. appeals court
l4sb.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer was reprimanded after filing fake and hallucinated citations.
  • The page says the citations were fake and hallucinated due to AI hallucinations.
  • The sanction was a reprimand with no amount stated.
  • The court was a U.S. appeals court in federal court.
  • The page gives no attorney name, date, or AI tool.
Fined $110K
Two lawyers filed 15 fabricated citations and eight invented quotations, and a federal magistrate judge sanctioned them $110,000.
In re Two Oregon Lawyers · U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · OR
customgpt.ai ↗
The file →
  • In re Two Oregon Lawyers involved two lawyers in Oregon.
  • They filed 15 fabricated citations and eight invented quotations.
  • A federal magistrate judge imposed a $110,000 sanction.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Oregon.
  • The page says it was the largest such penalty handed down by an Oregon federal judge.
Fined
A Melbourne law firm was ordered to pay costs after it was caught using fake AI-generated citations and incorrect cases.
[Melbourne law firm matter] · a Melbourne law firm · VIC
ia.acs.org.au ↗
The file →
  • A Melbourne law firm was sanctioned in a separate matter.
  • It was caught using fake AI-generated citations and incorrect cases.
  • The firm was ordered to pay costs, but the amount is not given on the page.
  • Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • The article says this happened last month and gives no judge name or AI tool.
Referred to the bar
A Western Australian lawyer was referred to the state regulator after submitting documents with fake AI-generated cases and inaccurate citations.
Western Australian lawyer · state regulator · WA
“the attraction of AI for lawyers was currently a “dangerous mirage”.”
ia.acs.org.au ↗
The file →
  • A Western Australian lawyer was referred to the state regulator.
  • The lawyer tendered documents citing four cases that did not exist or were cited inaccurately.
  • The sanction was a referral; the article gives no amount.
  • The court was in Western Australia, but the judge’s name is not given.
  • The lawyer admitted overconfidence in AI tools and failure to verify the results.
Fined $31K
A Canadian tribunal found court materials with AI-fabricated case citations and ordered the lawyer to pay $31,150 in costs.
Giacomini et al. v. University of Toronto Mississauga · Ontario court
cp24.com ↗
The file →
  • Giacomini et al. v. University of Toronto Mississauga; the lawyer was sanctioned
  • Court materials contained AI-fabricated case citations
  • The tribunal ordered $31,150 in costs
  • A Canadian tribunal in Ontario
  • Published June 27, 2026; the article says it was the largest costs award of its kind to date
Reprimanded
A regulated trademark attorney relied on inaccurate AI outputs with fabricated authorities, and the tribunal found serious misconduct.
UKIPO Trademark Appeal (BL O/0559/25) · UK Intellectual Property Office
“A regulated professional is under a duty to exercise independent judgment and cannot abdicate that responsibility to an algorithm.”
thebarristergroup.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • The page identifies a UKIPO trademark appeal, BL O/0559/25.
  • Both an LIP and a regulated trademark attorney relied on inaccurate AI outputs, including fabricated authorities.
  • For the attorney, the tribunal treated the conduct as serious misconduct.
  • The matter was before the UK Intellectual Property Office.
  • The page says the attorney was subject to the stricter professional standard because he was regulated.
Warned
A pro se opening brief used eight AI-generated fake cases, but the court declined sanctions and instead warned future misuse may be sanctioned.
Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC · Colorado Court of Appeals · CO
“technological convenience must never outweigh accuracy and integrity in the judicial process.”
cl.cobar.org ↗
The file →
  • Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC; the self-represented plaintiff was the filer.
  • The opening brief included eight AI-generated fake cases and he admitted the hallucinations.
  • No sanction was imposed; the court issued a warning only.
  • Colorado Court of Appeals, Colorado state court.
  • Published opinion noted his pro se status and immediate admission as mitigating factors.
Warned
The claimant's background assistant cited cases that appeared to be AI hallucinations, and the tribunal warned against relying on AI but took no further action.
A v British Transport Police Authority · Employment Tribunal
“The judge explained to the claimant the danger of relying upon AI to source case authorities and the steps which must be taken to check that they are genuine.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • A v British Transport Police Authority; claimant's background assistant cited false cases
  • Documents sent to the respondent contained cases that appeared to be AI hallucinations
  • The tribunal took no further action after the claimant apologized
  • Employment Tribunal
  • 9 March 2026; tribunal refused to reproduce the false citations in the judgment
Caught, not sanctioned
The claimant used a generative AI tool to draft submissions with inaccurate and wholly inaccurate case-law references, and the tribunal ignored the legal points.
O Ilunga v Portico Cooperate Reception Management Ltd · Mr Green · Employment Tribunal
“It became apparent that the claimant had used a generative AI tool to assist her in producing her written submissions.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • O Ilunga v Portico Cooperate Reception Management Ltd; claimant used AI-assisted submissions
  • Written submissions included case-law references that were not always accurate and some wholly inaccurate
  • No sanction was imposed; the tribunal disregarded the legal principles asserted
  • Employment Tribunal
  • 9 March 2026; respondent said checking the citations would take considerable time and cost

Showing 331–340 of 853.

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