legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
98
Incidents tracked
30
Incidents in 2026
$386,941
In fines, where reported
14 of 98 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 57 of 98 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 17 Claude 2 CoCounsel 2 LEAP 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 ChatGPT-4 1 Copilot 1 GPT-3.5 1 Gemini 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

Showing 31–40 of 98 incidents. Clear filters

Referred to the bar
A Western Australian lawyer was referred to the state regulator after submitting documents with fake AI-generated cases and inaccurate citations.
Western Australian lawyer · state regulator · WA
“the attraction of AI for lawyers was currently a “dangerous mirage”.”
ia.acs.org.au ↗
The file →
  • A Western Australian lawyer was referred to the state regulator.
  • The lawyer tendered documents citing four cases that did not exist or were cited inaccurately.
  • The sanction was a referral; the article gives no amount.
  • The court was in Western Australia, but the judge’s name is not given.
  • The lawyer admitted overconfidence in AI tools and failure to verify the results.
Referred to the bar
A Clayton County prosecutor filed a brief with fabricated citations and later admitted using AI; the filing prompted possible discipline and referral to the State Bar.
Clayton County prosecutor filing · Tasha Mosley · Supreme Court of Georgia · GA
cbsnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Clayton County prosecutor filing involving Tasha Mosley
  • A brief contained multiple fabricated citations and at least five nonexistent cases
  • Possible discipline and referral to the State Bar were discussed
  • Supreme Court of Georgia, Georgia
  • Date not stated; prosecutor admitted using artificial intelligence in drafting the filing
Referred to the bar $8K Claude
A lawyer filed immigration submissions with four non-existent case citations and was referred to the WA legal regulator and ordered to pay costs.
Australia immigration case (anonymised lawyer referred to Legal Practice Board of Western Australia) · Federal Court of Australia
““demonstrates the inherent dangers associated with practitioners solely relying on the use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of court documents and the way in which that interacts with a practitioner’s duty to the court”.”
theguardian.com ↗
The file →
  • An anonymised lawyer in an immigration case was referred to the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia.
  • The court found the submissions contained four case citations that did not exist.
  • The federal court ordered costs of $8,371.30 and made the referral.
  • Federal Court of Australia; the lawyer was not named in the article.
  • Justice Arran Gerrard said the case showed the dangers of solely relying on AI; the lawyer used Claude and Copilot.
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.
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.
Referred to the bar 2026-07-31
An acting judge cited fabricated AI legal references in a judgment, leading the appeal court to refer the matter to the Legal Practice Council.
FJL v TGO · Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
gittins.co.za ↗
The file →
  • Case FJL v TGO involved an acting judge relying on fake citations.
  • Opperman J found 11 discrepancies including a non-existent case likely caused by AI hallucination.
  • The court referred the matter to the Legal Practice Council for investigation.
  • Gauteng Division, Johannesburg in South Africa.
  • Decision delivered on July 31, 2026; counsel did not supply the fake citations.
Referred to the bar 2026-07-10
The court referred attorney Anthony Sabatini to its lawyer-qualifications committee after he submitted an appellate brief and a proposed reply containing 16 fake AI cases.
Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., et al. · Anthony F. Sabatini · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · FL
“Whatever the merits of artificial intelligence, it is no substitute for actual intelligence.”
floridapolitics.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Anthony Sabatini represented clients before the appellate court.
  • He filed an opening brief with 8 fake cases and a proposed reply attempting to withdraw them with 8 additional fake cases.
  • The court affirmed the dismissal of his clients' lawsuit and referred him to a lawyer-qualifications committee.
  • The matter took place in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • In July 2026, the court found he outsourced legal research to AI without checking the results.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.