legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
126
Incidents tracked
50
Incidents in 2026
$4,000
In fines, where reported
1 of 126 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 74 of 126 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 20 Copilot 5 AI-assisted legal software 2 ChatGPT-4o 1 Claude 1 CoCounsel 1 Legal Genius 1 Lexis+ AI 1 Strongsuit 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 126 incidents. Clear filters

Warned
A litigant in person used AI in a skeleton argument with erroneous citations; the Recorder rejected the misleading references and considered publication and naming.
Re A, B, C, D [2026] EWFC 71 · [LIP] · Family Court
“All parties – represented and unrepresented – owe a duty to the court to ensure that cases cited in legal argument are genuine and provide authority for the proposition advanced.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Re A, B, C, D [2026] EWFC 71 and [LIP]
  • Used an AI tool to prepare a skeleton argument containing erroneous citations
  • No monetary sanction; the Recorder considered publication and naming
  • Family Court, England and Wales
  • Recorder said parties owe a duty to ensure cited cases are genuine
Warned
An attorney filed a brief with four possibly AI-generated fake case citations, and Judge Nancy Kennedy ordered counsel to prove the cases existed within 10 days.
Lauren Rochon-Eidsvig and Heidi Rochon Hafer v. JGB Collateral, LLC · Dallas Court of Appeals · TX
legal.io ↗
The file →
  • Lauren Rochon-Eidsvig and Heidi Rochon Hafer v. JGB Collateral, LLC
  • A Texas brief included four cases the court and opposing counsel could not locate
  • Judge Kennedy ordered counsel to verify the cases within 10 days
  • Dallas Court of Appeals, Texas
  • May 2024 brief; reported as a scrutiny/order rather than a money sanction
Warned
The Court of Appeal said parts of the submissions appeared to rely on non-existent authorities and warned AI outputs must be verified.
Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609 · New Zealand Court of Appeal
thelawyers.nz ↗
The file →
  • Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609; submissions were at issue
  • Parts of the submissions appeared to rely on non-existent authorities
  • The court warned that AI outputs must be verified before filing
  • New Zealand Court of Appeal
  • 16 October 2025; no AI tool was named
Warned ChatGPT
A lawyer’s suspected AI use led to fake cases being cited before the tribunal, and the tribunal warned that uploading confidential client documents to ChatGPT breached privilege.
Munir v. Secretary of State for the Home Department · Immigration and Asylum Chamber
blakes.com ↗
The file →
  • Munir v. Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a lawyer suspected of using AI-generated fake cases.
  • The lawyer said he did not know how the fake cases appeared in his submissions.
  • The tribunal warned that uploading confidential client documents into an open-source AI tool breaches client confidentiality and waives privilege.
  • Immigration and Asylum Chamber (U.K.).
  • The page says the lawyer admitted putting client letters and other confidential material in ChatGPT.
Warned
A lawyer filed submissions with inaccurate, apparently AI-generated authorities that had not been independently verified; the Commission warned of disciplinary or procedural consequences.
Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education) · Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
judiciary.sc ↗
The file →
  • Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education); a lawyer’s submissions before the Commission
  • Submissions contained inaccurate and apparently AI-generated legal authorities and propositions
  • The Commission warned that AI use can lead to disciplinary or procedural consequences
  • Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, Queensland
  • 2025; the decision stressed counsel remain personally responsible for all authorities
Warned
The page mentions a family-proceedings case in which a barrister misled the court with AI-generated fake cases and was ordered named.
Judge orders naming of barrister who misled court using AI-generated fake cases in family proceedings
lawgazette.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Family proceedings matter involving a barrister
  • AI-generated fake cases were presented to the court
  • The court ordered the barrister be named
  • No sanction amount is stated on the page
  • Published 2026-05-12; the article gives no judge name or exact order date
Warned
Three lawyers filed fabricated citations, and the court issued an order to show cause related to the fabrications.
Landberg v. City of New York, 2025-02380 · New York court · NY
jlellis.net ↗
The file →
  • Landberg v. City of New York, 2025-02380 involved three lawyers in New York.
  • One lawyer used fabricated citations and the others failed to notice or report them.
  • The court issued an order to show cause related to the fabrications.
  • The page identifies a New York court but not the judge by name.
  • Published May 29, 2026; the page says there is a video of the bench slap, about 22 minutes long.
Warned ChatGPT
Two lawyers filed a brief with non-existent cases; the High Court warned of severe sanctions after ChatGPT was found to have been used.
High Court of Justice in London warning matter · High Court of Justice in London
“The technology was “not capable of conducting reliable legal research.””
posteo.de ↗
The file →
  • Two lawyers submitted a brief citing cases that could not be found.
  • One lawyer had asked ChatGPT for evidence supporting the claim.
  • The High Court warned of severe sanctions, not a monetary penalty.
  • High Court of Justice in London.
  • Last summer; judge said the tools can produce plausible but incorrect responses.
Warned
An unrepresented respondent acknowledged using AI to assist with submissions containing fabricated legal authorities, prompting the court to reiterate the duty to cite genuine cases.
The States of Guernsey v Steven Terrance Ogier · Royal Court of Guernsey
“of indisputable importance for matters”
collascrill.com ↗
The file →
  • The States of Guernsey v Steven Terrance Ogier involved an unrepresented respondent.
  • The respondent used AI to assist with submissions that included fabricated legal authorities.
  • The Royal Court of Guernsey warned against AI hallucinations infecting legal arguments.
  • The court belonged to the Royal Court of Guernsey.
  • The case [2026] GRC030 emphasized that all parties owe a duty to ensure cited cases are genuine.
Warned
A pro se defendant filed submissions with AI-generated arguments, incorrect citations, phantom cases, and fabricated quotations; the court found them frivolous and warned of sanctions.
Keefe v. BMakin Film LTD · BMakin Film LTD · Supreme Court, New York · NY
““Submissions that rely on non-existent cases generated by artificial intelligence, resulting in AI ‘hallucinations’ and cases that do not stand for the propositions alleged, are considered ‘frivolous conduct’ under 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 and are sanctionable.””
gerberciano.com ↗
The file →
  • Keefe v. BMakin Film LTD involved a pro se defendant's filings.
  • The submissions contained AI-generated arguments, incorrect citations, phantom cases, and fabricated quotations.
  • The court found the conduct frivolous and warned future violations would bring monetary sanctions.
  • The court was in New York state court.
  • The article quotes the court on non-existent AI-generated cases being sanctionable.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.