legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
37
Incidents tracked
10
Incidents in 2026
$99,597
In fines, where reported
3 of 37 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 24 of 37 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 10 Centient AI 1 LegalAI 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 125 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 56 Filing dismissed 37 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1

Showing 31–37 of 37 incidents. Clear filters

Filing dismissed 2025-05-13
A struck-off former solicitor’s appeal cited 25 nonexistent cases, and the High Court struck out the grounds on its own motion.
Bandla v Solicitors Regulation Authority · High Court
“needs to take decisive action to protect the integrity of its processes against any citation of fake authority.”
searchthe.law ↗
The file →
  • Bandla v Solicitors Regulation Authority was the case caption named on the page.
  • The appeal grounds cited 25 cases that did not exist.
  • Fordham J struck out the grounds of the court’s own motion.
  • The court was the High Court in England and Wales.
  • Decided 13 May 2025; the article says the court acted to protect the integrity of its processes.
Filing dismissed ChatGPT 2025-04-01
An applicant repeatedly used the term "subornation of perjury," which Judge David Nolan said sounded like AI and denied the judicial review appeal.
Judicial review appeal in Ireland · High Court
“This sounds like something that derived from an artificial intelligence source,”
businessplus.ie ↗
The file →
  • An unnamed applicant was before Judge David Nolan.
  • The applicant repeatedly used a phrase the judge thought came from AI.
  • Judge Nolan denied the judicial review appeal.
  • This happened in the High Court in Ireland.
  • About four months after Dec. 2024; Nolan said it had the hallmarks of ChatGPT or a similar tool.
Filing dismissed ChatGPT 2025-01-01
The court dismissed a damages claim after the plaintiff's ChatGPT-assisted complaint relied on inaccurate or non-existent legal bases.
AI-written lawsuit dismissed by the court · Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu
“the statement of claim having been drafted entirely with the assistance of ChatGPT.”
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
  • AI-written lawsuit dismissed by the court; the plaintiff
  • The complaint was drafted entirely with ChatGPT and used inaccurate or non-existent legal bases
  • The court dismissed the claim as unfounded
  • Wrocław, Poland
  • 2025; the court said responsibility for the content rested with the plaintiff
Filing dismissed 2025-01-01
An appeal against strike-off listed 27 non-existent authorities, which the judge found had not been checked, leading to grounds of appeal being struck out.
Bandla v SRA · a solicitor in Bandla v SRA · High Court of Justice, Administrative Court
definely.com ↗
The file →
  • Bandla v SRA; a solicitor was sanctioned
  • The filing involved 25 non-existent AI-generated authorities
  • The court ordered over £24,000 in costs
  • High Court of Justice, Administrative Court, England and Wales
  • [2025] EWHC 1167 (Admin); the page does not name the AI tool
Filing dismissed 2024-12-01
A married couple in Dublin filed error-strewn submissions after relying on AI-generated legal material, and Judge David Nolan threw out the submission.
Dublin repossession case · High Court
“The general public should be warned against the use of generative AI devices and programs in matters of law.”
businessplus.ie ↗
The file →
  • A married couple in Dublin were the parties in the case.
  • They used AI-linked material that misread legal terms and legislation in a repossession dispute.
  • Judge Nolan threw out the submission entirely.
  • The order was from the High Court in Ireland.
  • Dec. 2024; the judge warned against using generative AI in matters of law.
Filing dismissed $10K ChatGPT 2024-01-01
A litigant submitted an appellate brief with fictitious AI-generated case citations, and the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and imposed damages.
Kruse v. Karlen · Jonathan Karlen · Missouri Court of Appeals · MO
“The Court of Appeals noted that the “bogus citations” could not, “for any reason….be countenanced and represent a flagrant violation of the duty of candor” owed to the court.”
nysba.org ↗
The file →
  • Kruse v. Karlen involved a self-represented appellant.
  • Her AI program cited 24 cases, but only two were real and both were misunderstood.
  • The court dismissed the appeal and ordered $10,000 in attorney’s fees.
  • Missouri Court of Appeals, Missouri.
  • The article says the AI made up case names and citations that appeared genuine.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.