legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
151
Incidents tracked
26
Incidents in 2026
$542,786
In fines, where reported
50 of 151 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 60 of 151 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 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 53 Caught, not sanctioned 32 Warned 19 Referred to the bar 17 Reprimanded 13 Filing dismissed 10 Outcome unclear 6 Suspension 1

Showing 31–40 of 151 incidents involving ChatGPT. Clear filters

Warned ChatGPT
A U.S. lawyer used ChatGPT to draft filings and cited fake cases; a federal judge responded with a standing order on AI use.
ChatGPT references nonexistent legal cases · A U.S. lawyer · federal judge
evidentlyai.com ↗
The file →
  • A U.S. lawyer in the ChatGPT case
  • He used ChatGPT and ended up citing entirely fake legal cases
  • The judge issued a standing order, not a monetary penalty
  • Federal court; the page gives no judge name or location
  • The page says the lawyer did not realize ChatGPT was a generative language tool
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Michael Cohen gave his lawyer AI-generated citations, and fake cases ended up in a real court filing.
Michael Cohen matter · Michael Cohen · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“the attorneys’ actions were “embarrassing and certainly negligent.””
medium.com ↗
The file →
  • Michael Cohen and his lawyer were involved.
  • AI-generated citations were given to the lawyer and filed in court.
  • The page says they got sanctioned, but gives no order details.
  • No court, judge, or location is named on the page.
  • ChatGPT is identified as the tool used.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Rose Lawyers drafted a will with AI-assisted legal citations; the page does not say any sanctions were imposed.
Re Walker [2025] VSC 714 · Rose Lawyers · Victorian Supreme Court
heirsandsuccesses.com ↗
The file →
  • Re Walker [2025] VSC 714 involved Rose Lawyers drafting the will.
  • The page discusses AI-assisted preparation and verification risks.
  • No sanction or penalty is described on the page.
  • Victorian Supreme Court, Victoria.
  • May 2024 guidelines and a discussion of ChatGPT/Google Gemini appear in the article.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Relator’s expert used ChatGPT to draft an expert report with fabricated CMS testimony and bogus citations, and defendants moved to sanction counsel and seek disqualification.
United States ex rel. Khoury v. Mountain West Anesthesia, LLC · U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada · NV
“if fines and public embarrassment were effective deterrents, there would not be so many cases to cite.”
texaslawbook.net ↗
The file →
  • United States ex rel. Khoury v. Mountain West Anesthesia, LLC; relator’s counsel was at issue
  • An expert report used ChatGPT and contained fabricated CMS testimony, invented manuals and miscited regulations
  • Defendants moved for sanctions, fee shifting and disqualification; no sanction order is stated on the page
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, federal court in Nevada
  • Aug. 13 motion; the page says the misconduct may lead to disqualification and dismissal
Referred to the bar ChatGPT
A lawyer was referred to a disciplinary regulator after filing two documents that relied on non-existent citations and quotes.
ChatGPT blunder sees lawyer referred to regulator · Disciplinary regulator
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer was referred to a disciplinary regulator.
  • The page says two filed documents relied on non-existent citations and quotes.
  • The sanction was referral; no amount is stated.
  • The article names ChatGPT as the AI tool.
  • Published Dec. 31, 2025; the page gives no case caption or judge quote.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Counsel was said to have filed a letter brief with fabricated AI citations, and Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro dismissed the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
LaPaglia v. Valve Corp. · S.D. Cal. · CA

Cases that don't exist

  • Bassett's Adm'r v. Cunningham's Adm'r, 50 Va. 684
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • LaPaglia v. Valve Corp. involved petitioner's counsel.
  • Valve said counsel submitted a letter brief with AI-fabricated citations.
  • Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro dismissed the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
  • S.D. Cal., federal court in California.
  • The page says the counsel had been recently sanctioned by an arbitrator; ChatGPT was used only in a law-clerk check.
Fined $500 ChatGPT
Michael Chambers filed a motion containing ChatGPT-generated fake case citations, and the court sanctioned him for the AI-made fabrications.
Arthur v. City of Hartford · Michael Chambers · U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · CT

Cases that don't exist

  • Mati v. City of Hartford
  • Smith v. City of Hartford
  • Johnson v. City of Hartford
nytimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Arthur v. City of Hartford; Michael Chambers was sanctioned.
  • He filed a motion with ChatGPT-generated fake legal citations.
  • The court imposed a $500 monetary fine.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
  • The page says the fake cases came from ChatGPT.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A practitioner filed a submission quoting a fictional Court of Appeal judgment generated by ChatGPT, and the judge said it wasted public resources.
LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia · Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal · QLD
“the case simply does not exist”
nicholeslaw.com.au ↗
The file →
  • LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia; a practitioner was involved.
  • A written submission quoted a fictional Court of Appeal judgment generated by ChatGPT.
  • No sanction is stated on the page; the judge said it wasted public resources.
  • Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Queensland.
  • 2025; the judge said 'the case simply does not exist' and 'caused a significant waste of public resources.'
Filing dismissed ChatGPT
A worker filed AI-generated WCAT submissions with fabricated cases and policies; WCAT dismissed the appeal and warned of possible costs.
A2501051, 2025 CanLII 97422 · British Columbia Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal
“It appears that the worker’s submission was created, at least partly, with the use of artificial intelligence.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Zhang v. Chen, 2024 BCSC 285
  • Geismayr v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1970, 2025 BCCRT 217
  • AQ v. BW, 2025 BCCRT 907

+1 more

wcblawyers.com ↗
The file →
  • A2501051 at WCAT involved a worker's submission.
  • The worker used AI to prepare arguments for a prohibited action appeal.
  • The submission contained fake cases, incorrect policy, and bad legal arguments.
  • WCAT dismissed the appeal and noted AI-based submissions can lead to costs.
  • The deputy registrar said the submission was partly created with artificial intelligence and cited hallucinated cases.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.