legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
53
Incidents tracked
12
Incidents in 2026
$280,119
In fines, where reported
44 of 53 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 23 of 53 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 53 Claude 4 Lexis+ AI 4 Westlaw Precision 4 CoCounsel 3 Copilot 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 Archie 1 ChatOn 1 ClearBrief 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 Gemini 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google AI 1 Google Scholar 1 Grok 1 Irys 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 53 incidents involving ChatGPT. Clear filters

Fined $500 ChatGPT 2026-03-19
A pro se plaintiff filed a Rule 11 sanctions motion containing fictitious and inaccurate AI-generated case citations; the court awarded fees to the defendant.
Brownfield v. Cherokee County School District No. 35 · Oscar Brownfield · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma · OK
“Still, they “displayed a reckless disregard for the obligation to ensure that what is filed in federal court is true, verified, and worthy of the public trust,” warranting sanctions “both to redress the specific harm and to deter recurrence.””
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Brownfield v. Cherokee County School District No. 35 involved a pro se plaintiff sanctioned for bogus citations.
  • His Rule 11 motion contained fictitious and inaccurate case citations generated by AI.
  • The court ordered $500 paid directly to the school district.
  • E.D. Okla., federal court in Oklahoma.
  • March 19, 2026; the amount reflected about two hours of defense counsel time.
Fined $2K ChatGPT 2026-03-10
A pro se plaintiff filed a brief with fabricated case citations and AI-generated content; the court imposed Rule 11 sanctions.
Allen v. Cass Casper · N.D. Ill. · IL
“Pro se status does not shelter plaintiffs from sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. … Filing a document that contains citations to nonexistent cases, quotes language that comes from no real case, or that contains arguments wholly unsupported by the record violates Rule 11. Allen did just that. This demonstrates that Allen failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the supporting law or facts.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Allen v. Cass Casper involved a pro se plaintiff sanctioned over AI-made citations.
  • Her opposition brief contained at least two entirely fabricated case citations and AI-generated sections.
  • The court imposed a $1,500 Rule 11 monetary sanction.
  • N.D. Ill., federal court in Illinois.
  • March 10, 2026; the court said she relied too heavily on AI without reasonable inquiry.
Fined $1K ChatGPT 2026-02-24
An attorney filed an error-filled brief drafted with ChatGPT and Westlaw Precision AI that cited numerous hallucinated cases, and Judge Brandon Long imposed a $1,000 sanction.
Woodward Harbor LLC v. City of Mandeville, et al. · Eastern District of Louisiana · LA
mblb.com ↗
The file →
  • Woodward Harbor LLC v. City of Mandeville, et al.; one attorney was sanctioned.
  • He submitted a brief drafted with ChatGPT and Westlaw Precision AI containing hallucinated cases.
  • The court imposed a $1,000 sanction.
  • Eastern District of Louisiana; federal; Louisiana.
  • 2026-02-24; the brief included at least 11 citations that were made up, misquoted, or misused.
Fined $12K ChatGPT 2026-02-02
Lawyers filed briefs with ChatGPT-hallucinated citations and quotations, and Judge Julie A. Robinson publicly admonished and sanctioned them.
Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc. · Sandeep Seth; Kenneth Kula; Christopher Joe; Michael Doell; David Cooper · D. Kan. · KS
“the Rule 11 duty is “nondelegable.””
yahoo.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorneys Sandeep Seth, Kenneth P. Kula, Christopher M. Joe, and David R. Cooper sanctioned
  • Submitted nonexistent citations, fabricated quotations, and misrepresented decisions using ChatGPT
  • Sandeep Seth fined $5,000; Kula and Joe fined $3,000 each; Cooper fined $1,000 (total $12,000)
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas under Judge Julie A. Robinson
  • Order issued February 2, 2026; Seth had his permission to appear revoked
Fined $1K ChatGPT 2026-02-01
A New Orleans court fined John Walker $1,000 after his LSU Health Foundation brief contained at least 11 fabricated or mischaracterized citations.
John Walker · John Walker · New Orleans · LA
““To this day it blows my mind it has that capability,””
developmentcorporate.com ↗
The file →
  • John Walker was sanctioned over an LSU Health Foundation brief.
  • The brief contained at least 11 fabricated or mischaracterized citations.
  • The court imposed a $1,000 fine.
  • New Orleans, Louisiana state court.
  • February 2026; Walker used both ChatGPT and Westlaw Precision AI.
Fined $3K ChatGPT 2025-12-12
Co-counsel Celeste Boyd used ChatGPT to draft and edit portions of briefs in an OnlyFans-related case and was sanctioned $3,000 for failing to verify them.
Celeste Boyd · Celeste Boyd · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“The judge additionally imposed a $3,000 sanction on co-counsel Celeste Boyd, who he said used ChatGPT to draft and edit portions of the briefs but failed to verify the material, Reuters also reports.”
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Celeste Boyd was sanctioned as co-counsel in the OnlyFans case.
  • She used ChatGPT to draft and edit portions of briefs that contained hallucinated material.
  • The court imposed a $3,000 sanction on Boyd.
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; Judge Fred Slaughter; California.
  • The article says she failed to verify the material before filing.
Fined $60K ChatGPT 2025-12-05
An Illinois circuit court sanctioned a law firm $50,000 and an individual attorney another $10,000 for including false case citations and quotations in post-trial submissions, which the court characterized as a “serious failure” of the attorneys’ obligation to present truthful, accurate information.
Jordan v. Chi. Hous. Auth., No. 2022 L 000095 · Chicago Housing Authority's counsel · Cook County Circuit Court · IL
“The Court further emphasized its focus was “not on the misuse of artificial intelligence to conduct unreliable legal research and drafting,” but “the inexcusable submission of false authority and factual arguments to the Court, the subsequent misrepresentations about the extent of the improper conduct, and the failure to take prompt responsibility for errors once discovered.””

Cases that don't exist

  • Mack v. Anderson
klemchuk.com ↗
The file →
  • A law firm and an individual attorney were sanctioned in Jordan v. Chi. Hous. Auth.
  • They included 14 instances of non-existent quotes and fabricated holdings in post-trial submissions, generated using AI.
  • The sanction was a monetary fine totaling $60,000 ($50,000 for the firm and $10,000 for the attorney).
  • The sanction was issued by an Illinois Circuit Court.
  • The incident date was December 5, 2025, and the court emphasized that the obligations of officials of the court precede electronic research and artificial intelligence.
Fined ChatGPT 2025-11-19
A lawyer was sanctioned with a 500 CAD penalty and denied identity anonymization after filing a ChatGPT-fabricated case citation.
Yuehong v. The Minister of Citizenship & Immigration · Federal Court
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Yuehong v. Minister of Citizenship & Immigration involved an unnamed counsel in Canada.
  • Counsel submitted a brief containing a fabricated case citation from ChatGPT.
  • Ordered to pay a monetary sanction of 500 CAD; court refused to anonymize lawyer's name.
  • Decided in the Federal Court of Canada.
  • Issued November 19, 2025, naming ChatGPT explicitly as the source.
Fined $1K ChatGPT 2025-10-23
Counsel filed opposition papers with AI-generated false Louisiana case citations; the trial court sanctioned her and the appellate court affirmed.
In re: Sanctions Order of KENNEY (2025) · Connie P. Trieu · Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit · LA
“Plaintiff's counsel submitted legal authority and citations generated by “A.I.” software without verifying their authenticity.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Burns v. State, 813 So.2d 574
  • Smith v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp., 20-306 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/3/20), 308 So.3d 1216
  • Doe v. Southwest Louisiana Hosp. Ass'n, 02-180 (La. App. 3 Cir. 7/10/02), 833 So.2d 1136
caselaw.findlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • In re: Sanctions Order of KENNEY (2025) sanctioned Connie P. Trieu.
  • She filed pleadings containing three fabricated Louisiana citations and other citation errors.
  • The trial court ordered $1,368 in attorney's fees plus costs.
  • Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, in Louisiana.
  • Decided October 23, 2025; the opinion says the citations were generated by AI and notes ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot were used.
Fined $5K ChatGPT 2025-10-01
Mr. Laprade filed proceedings with false AI-generated citations and other authorities, and the Superior Court of Quebec imposed a $5,000 penalty.
Specter Aviation Limited c. Laprade · Jean Laprade · Superior Court of Québec
“The Court therefore imposed a $5,000 sanction on the Defendant, both to punish his conduct and to deter similar behaviour in the future.”
gowlingwlg.com ↗
The file →
  • Specter Aviation Limited v. Laprade; Mr. Laprade was sanctioned
  • He filed proceedings with false citations, decisions, and references produced using AI
  • The court imposed a $5,000 penalty
  • Superior Court of Quebec, Quebec
  • October 1, 2025; the court said AI cannot justify inaccurate or fabricated documents
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.