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
A pro se plaintiff filed a 112-page brief opposing a motion to dismiss that contained at least two entirely fabricated case citations.
pro se plaintiff
jdsupra.com ↗
The file →
  • A pro se plaintiff was identified in the article, not a named lawyer or firm.
  • He filed a 112-page brief opposing a motion to dismiss.
  • The brief contained at least two entirely fabricated case citations.
  • No sanction or court order is described on the page.
  • The page gives no court, judge, date, or AI tool name.
Referred to the bar
A Clayton County prosecutor filed a brief with fabricated citations and later admitted using AI; the filing prompted possible discipline and referral to the State Bar.
Clayton County prosecutor filing · Tasha Mosley · Supreme Court of Georgia · GA
cbsnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Clayton County prosecutor filing involving Tasha Mosley
  • A brief contained multiple fabricated citations and at least five nonexistent cases
  • Possible discipline and referral to the State Bar were discussed
  • Supreme Court of Georgia, Georgia
  • Date not stated; prosecutor admitted using artificial intelligence in drafting the filing
Caught, not sanctioned
A tribunal found a respondent relied on cases it could not find and prepared the grounds of appeal with an AI tool, engaging the tribunal’s resources.
Another Four UK AI Hallucination cases (AI and non‑AI fabricated/false citations) (24 in total): November Shows How Quickly the Problem Is Escalating Internationally · tribunal
“The tribunal is aware of the growing use of artificial intelligence and it would appear that an AI tool was used to prepare the Respondent’s grounds of appeal.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • The page describes an unnamed respondent before a tribunal.
  • The grounds of appeal relied on cases the tribunal could not find or recognize.
  • No sanction is stated on the page.
  • A tribunal found the respondent’s appeal materials were AI-prepared.
  • The page says the tribunal’s resources were disproportionately engaged.
Referred to the bar $8K Claude
A lawyer filed immigration submissions with four non-existent case citations and was referred to the WA legal regulator and ordered to pay costs.
Australia immigration case (anonymised lawyer referred to Legal Practice Board of Western Australia) · Federal Court of Australia
““demonstrates the inherent dangers associated with practitioners solely relying on the use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of court documents and the way in which that interacts with a practitioner’s duty to the court”.”
theguardian.com ↗
The file →
  • An anonymised lawyer in an immigration case was referred to the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia.
  • The court found the submissions contained four case citations that did not exist.
  • The federal court ordered costs of $8,371.30 and made the referral.
  • Federal Court of Australia; the lawyer was not named in the article.
  • Justice Arran Gerrard said the case showed the dangers of solely relying on AI; the lawyer used Claude and Copilot.
Caught, not sanctioned
Jones Walker filed briefs containing AI-generated fake citations, and the court later slammed the lawyers over the false statements to the court.
Lee · Jones Walker · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
grassley.senate.gov ↗
The file →
  • Lee; Jones Walker was the firm involved
  • The firm filed briefs containing AI-generated fake citations
  • The court addressed false statements to the court but the page does not state a sanction
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, New Jersey
  • No date, AI tool, or judge quote is provided on the page
Fined $4K Claude 2026-08-04
Defense counsel Hilary B. Miller was fined $3,500 and referred to the Grievance Committee after filing two motions containing 16 AI-generated legal errors.
Barteca Intermediate Holdings LLC et al. v. Tacobarn Newtown LLC et al. · Hilary B. Miller · U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · CT
“Applying the framework discussed above, the Court finds that the first factor—verification and inquiry—weighs in favor of sanctions because Attorney Miller failed to conduct a reasonable human verification of the authorities cited in the challenged filings before submitting them.”
ediscoveryllc.com ↗
The file →
  • Barteca Holdings v. Tacobarn Newtown involved defense attorney Hilary B. Miller.
  • Miller submitted two motions containing 16 errors in citations, quotations, and rules from unverified AI research.
  • The court imposed a $3,500 fine and referred the attorney to the court's Grievance Committee.
  • The case was before the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
  • On August 4, 2026, Judge Vernon D. Oliver found Miller violated Rule 11 after using Claude, OpenLaw, and ChatGPT.
Referred to the bar $47K 2026-08-04
A lawyer was penalized $46,511 and referred to the bar after submitting AI-hallucinated legal filings.
Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. Kaloidis · SC New York · NY
aininja.academy ↗
The file →
  • Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. Kaloidis involved an attorney submitting AI-generated content.
  • Generative AI produced hallucinated material in official court submissions.
  • The court imposed a monetary sanction of $46,511 and a bar disciplinary referral.
  • The proceedings occurred in the Supreme Court of New York.
  • The order was rendered on August 4, 2026.

Showing 341–350 of 853.

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