legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
851
Incidents tracked
262
Incidents in 2026
$2,417,608
In fines, where reported
214 of 851 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 446 of 851 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 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 126 Referred to the bar 98 Reprimanded 85 Outcome unclear 53 Filing dismissed 36 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
Fined $3K 2026-09-09
A lawyer was ordered to complete two AI-ethics CLE courses and pay $3,000 in monetary sanctions after using AI tools that fabricated and misrepresented case law.
Beus Gilbert PLLC v. Brigham Young University et al. · Mr. Pehrson, Mr. Clark · U.S. District Court for the District of Utah · UT
casemine.com ↗
The file →
  • Beus Gilbert PLLC v. Brigham Young University et al.
  • A lawyer used ClearBrief, Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini to generate filings containing fabricated and misrepresented case law.
  • The court ordered monetary sanctions of $3,000 and required two AI-ethics CLE courses.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
  • Decision issued September 9, 2026, involving multiple commercial and proprietary AI tools.
Fined $2K 2026-09-08
A lawyer was subjected to a $1,750 monetary sanction for submitting a filing with AI-fabricated case law.
State ex rel. Steven Schnell v. Honorable Rebecca Richardson · CA Missouri · MO
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • State ex rel. Steven Schnell v. Honorable Rebecca Richardson
  • A lawyer submitted a filing containing a fabricated case citation from an unidentified AI tool.
  • The court imposed a monetary sanction of $1,750.
  • Missouri Court of Appeals
  • Order issued September 8, 2026.
Fined $10K
Attorney James Louis Policchio faced a $10,000 sanction recommendation after quoting three fake cases in court filings due to unverified AI use.
James Louis Policchio · James Louis Policchio · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana · IN
“Yet these situations represent an abdication of those personal and professional responsibilities to those very machines, which to date have not proven themselves”
inkfreenews.com ↗
The file →
  • Indianapolis attorney James Louis Policchio cited three hallucinated cases in a multi-defendant lawsuit.
  • Policchio relied on AI after canceling his subscription to legal research platform Lexis.
  • A judge recommended a $10,000 monetary sanction against Policchio for the fake citations.
  • The case was heard by Chief Judge James R. Sweeney II in the Southern District of Indiana.
  • Policchio cited an overwhelming workload and inability to afford cite-checking software as causes.
Fined
Attorney Roger Roots was admonished and fined $500 per inaccurate filing for submitting a brief containing inaccurate citations and misleading characterizations of law.
Roger Roots · Roger Roots · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana · IN
“Whether these incorrect filings are the work of generative AI or counsel’s own sloppiness, the resulting errors and legal misrepresentations are glaring.”
inkfreenews.com ↗
The file →
  • Roger Roots represented Joseph Maldonado ('Joe Exotic') in an Endangered Species Act lawsuit.
  • Roots submitted court briefs containing inaccurate legal citations and misleading characterizations.
  • Chief Judge Holly A. Brady sanctioned Roots and fined him $500 for each inaccurate filing.
  • The matter was adjudicated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
  • Roots attributed the filing errors in part to a medical emergency experienced by his paralegal.
Caught, not sanctioned
The court upheld an eviction order after finding a pro se appellant submitted AI-fabricated legal references and misquoted statutes in his appeal.
Samuel Robinson · Tennessee Court of Appeals · TN
“Simply put, artificial intelligence, partly due to its lack of 'real intelligence,' is not yet—and perhaps never will be—a reliable substitute for thorough legal research”
omegatechnologysolutionsgroupinc.com ↗
The file →
  • Pro se appellant Samuel Robinson challenged his eviction using AI-generated content
  • The submission contained fabricated decision details, incorrect dates, and fake quotes
  • The court imposed no monetary sanctions but upheld the lower court's eviction ruling
  • Tennessee Court of Appeals, state court in Tennessee
  • Decision issued by Judge Andy Bennett noting AI lacks real intelligence for legal research
Reprimanded ChatGPT
Zachary Larsen was handed a stayed indefinite suspension, two years of supervised probation, and a public reprimand for submitting fake AI-generated citations to the court.
Zachary Larsen · Zachary Larsen · Minnesota Supreme Court · MN
webstat.net ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Zachary Larsen was disciplined by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
  • Larsen used ChatGPT to draft a motion that contained six hallucinated, fake case citations.
  • The court issued an stayed indefinite suspension, public reprimand, and 2 years of probation.
  • The decision was handed down by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Minnesota.
  • The court's ruling in December 2023 noted Larsen showed reckless disregard for the truth.
Reprimanded
A patent attorney was publicly reprimanded by the USPTO OED after submitting an AI-generated claim construction chart in federal court containing hallucinated citations to the intrinsic record.
In re Brian E. Mitchell · Brian E. Mitchell · United States Patent and Trademark Office · CA
ipwatchdog.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Brian E. Mitchell involved California patent attorney Brian E. Mitchell.
  • Mitchell used AI tools to draft and review a claim construction chart that included hallucinated citations to a patent's intrinsic record.
  • The USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline issued a public reprimand with no monetary fine.
  • The discipline was issued by the USPTO OED regarding filings submitted in the E.D. Pa.
  • This was the first USPTO disciplinary order predicated on AI-generated hallucinated citations to a patent's intrinsic record.
Fined $1K ChatGPT
The 10th Circuit ordered attorney Kusmin Linda Amarsingh to pay $1,000 for submitting a legal filing containing fake case citations generated by ChatGPT.
Kusmin Linda Amarsingh · Kusmin Linda Amarsingh · U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit · CO
coloradopolitics.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Kusmin Linda Amarsingh submitted fake case citations generated by artificial intelligence.
  • The attorney used unverified citations generated by ChatGPT in a legal filing.
  • The court ordered the lawyer to pay $1,000 to the opposing side as a financial penalty.
  • The sanction was ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver.
  • The three-judge panel noted that the attorney had expressed remorse for relying on the tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
The court declined to issue sanctions for early AI-hallucinated filings but relieved the defendant of replying to future filings.
Thomas v. Del. Tech. & Cmty. Coll. · U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware · DE
fsbrlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Thomas v. Del. Tech. & Cmty. Coll.
  • Pro se plaintiff filed over 49 motions containing AI-hallucinated cases and quotes
  • Court declined to award sanctions but relieved defendant of responding to future filings
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Connolly, J.)
  • Rulings issued in late 2025
Warned
The court acknowledged the defendant provided several hallucinated citations and issued a warning regarding sanctions.
Ruggierlo, Velardo, Burke, Reizen & Fox, P.C. v. Lancaster · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · MI
fsbrlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Ruggierlo, Velardo, Burke, Reizen & Fox, P.C. v. Lancaster
  • Defendant provided several hallucinated legal citations
  • Court issued a warning about the availability of sanctions
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
  • Decided September 11, 2023

Showing 31–40 of 851.

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