legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
857
Incidents tracked
266
Incidents in 2026
$2,397,608
In fines, where reported
212 of 857 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 452 of 857 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 249 Caught, not sanctioned 198 Warned 124 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 57 Filing dismissed 39 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
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.
Caught, not sanctioned
COFC said the plaintiff relied on fabricated AI-generated case law and called the filing an unacceptable abuse of the adversary system.
Sanders v. United States · U.S. Court of Federal Claims
“the court emphasized citing non‑existent cases generated by AI constitutes an “unacceptable” “abuse of the adversary system.””
smithlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Sanders v. United States involved fabricated AI-generated case law.
  • The plaintiff relied on fake authorities to advance arguments.
  • The page reports no specific sanction order in this incident.
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims, federal court.
  • 2025; COFC said such filings will not excuse jurisdictional defects.
Fined
The Tribunal issued reasons on costs in a matter involving fictitious case authorities filed with AI misuse, and the entry notes costs were ordered.
2026 ONLSTH 112, Reasons for Decision on Costs of Motions · Ontario’s Law Society Tribunal
courtready.ca ↗
The file →
  • 2026 ONLSTH 112; counsel or firm not named on the page
  • Filed fictitious case authorities and the page links it to AI misuse
  • Costs were ordered in the reasons for decision
  • Ontario’s Law Society Tribunal, Ontario
  • Published on the page as a cited decision; no AI tool named
Caught, not sanctioned
The self-represented appellant used AI and cited four cases that did not exist; the tribunal granted an adjournment and then recorded the false citations so others would not repeat them.
Huish v The Commissioners for HMRC · UK First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)
““We attach no blame to him, since he is a litigant in person but we have recorded the names so that others do not fall into the same trap.””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Huish v The Commissioners for HMRC; the appellant himself
  • He relied on four AI-generated cases that were later found not to exist
  • No sanction imposed; the tribunal granted an adjournment and recorded the names
  • UK First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)
  • 2026; the appellant was self-represented and the tribunal noted it attached no blame
Caught, not sanctioned
An attorney filed a legal document created using generative AI, and the court addressed the filing.
In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · PA
pacourts.us ↗
The file →
  • In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, an attorney filed a legal document created using generative AI.
  • The page does not state any hallucinated citations or identify a named attorney or firm.
  • No sanction amount or sanction type is given on the page.
  • The court is the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania.
  • The page gives no date, AI tool, or quoted judicial reasoning.
Referred to the bar
The court inferred AI use from the drafting pattern after a brief cited non-existent rulings, and it referred the matter to the bar association.
Acevedo, Gerardo Gabriel v. Cáceres Mareco, Willian Arsenio (motor vehicle damages with injury or death) · Chamber I of the Civil and Commercial Court of Morón
inplp.com ↗
The file →
  • Acevedo, Gerardo Gabriel v. Cáceres Mareco, Willian Arsenio (motor vehicle damages with injury or death)
  • The submission referenced non-existent rulings and inaccurate quotations.
  • No direct disciplinary measure was imposed; the court notified the bar association.
  • Chamber I of the Civil and Commercial Court of Morón, Argentina.
  • The article says AI use was inferred from distinctive drafting patterns.
Referred to the bar
Lawyers filed briefs with non-existent rulings, declined to confirm or deny AI use, and the court notified the bar association rather than discipline them.
M.J.L. v. Peugeot Citroën Argentina S.A. et al. (summary proceeding) · Civil, Commercial, Family, and Mining Appeals Chamber of General Roca
inplp.com ↗
The file →
  • M.J.L. v. Peugeot Citroën Argentina S.A. et al. (summary proceeding)
  • The filings contained citations that proved fabricated or materially inaccurate.
  • The court imposed no direct discipline but referred the matter to the bar association.
  • Civil, Commercial, Family, and Mining Appeals Chamber of General Roca, Argentina.
  • The attorneys declined to confirm or deny AI use in the contested filings.
Referred to the bar
Counsel admitted using AI to draft briefs with non-existent citations, and the court responded by verifying the authorities and notifying the bar association.
Giacomino, César Adrián et al. v. Monserrat, Facundo Damián et al. (damages) · Chamber II of the Civil and Commercial Court of Rosario
inplp.com ↗
The file →
  • Giacomino, César Adrián et al. v. Monserrat, Facundo Damián et al. (damages)
  • Counsel used AI to construct and bolster legal arguments with fictitious or erroneous citations.
  • No direct discipline was imposed; the court notified the bar association.
  • Chamber II of the Civil and Commercial Court of Rosario, Argentina.
  • The article says the lawyer openly acknowledged AI use and the court sought verification of the cited authorities.

Showing 351–360 of 857.

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