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
19
Incidents in 2026
$5,237
In fines, where reported
1 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 26 of 53 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 6 CoCounsel 1 Gemini 1 Google AI 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 53 incidents. Clear filters

Outcome unclear 2026-05-29
A lawyer submitted filings with impliedly false quotes of case law, leading to an Order to Show Cause from the court.
Garcia v. City of Monte Vista, Colorado et al · D. Colorado · CO
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer was involved in Garcia v. City of Monte Vista, Colorado et al.
  • Filings contained impliedly false quotes of case law.
  • The court issued an Order to Show Cause.
  • The incident occurred in the U.S. District Court of Colorado.
  • Dated May 29, 2026, the AI tool was implied.
Outcome unclear 2026-03-30
Civil Rights Corps filed a brief supporting sanctions against a District Attorney’s Office in the case of Kjoller v. Superior Court of Nevada County, urging an inquiry into filings riddled with fabricated legal authorities and fictitious quotations.
Kjoller v. Superior Court of Nevada County · California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District · CA
hoodline.com ↗
The file →
  • Kjoller v. Superior Court involved the Nevada County District Attorney's Office.
  • Prosecutors submitted a brief with three fabricated and three irrelevant case citations generated by AI.
  • The California Supreme Court ordered an investigation and order to show cause regarding sanctions.
  • The matter is pending before a court-appointed referee judge in California state court.
  • The January 2026 Supreme Court order review marks the first known case of US prosecutors submitting AI-hallucinated citations in a criminal proceeding.
Outcome unclear 2026-03-11
The defendants said the claimant deployed AI-generated hallucinatory references to non-existent cases, causing unnecessary cross-checking.
Setu Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Anor · not stated
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Setu Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Anor involved the claimant.
  • The page says AI-generated references to non-existent cases were deployed.
  • No sanction is stated on the page.
  • Court not stated on the page.
  • 11 Mar 2026; the references caused unnecessary effort in cross-checking.
Outcome unclear 2026-02-17
A lawyer submitted two fabricated case laws and one misrepresented exhibit/submission, and one misrepresented legal norm.
14095863 Canada Inc. v Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. · Canadian IPO
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in 14095863 Canada Inc. v Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. was involved.
  • The AI misuse involved fabricated case law (2), misrepresented exhibits/submissions (1), and a misrepresented legal norm (1).
  • No specific sanction type is mentioned.
  • The court was the Canadian IPO in Canada.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-17; the AI tool was implied.
Outcome unclear 2026-02-16
A pro se litigant submitted one fabricated case law.
Deblois v. Procureur Général · Federal Court
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Deblois v. Procureur Général involved a pro se litigant.
  • The AI misuse concerned fabricated case law (1).
  • No specific sanction type is mentioned.
  • The court was the Federal Court in Canada.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-16; the AI tool was implied.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.