legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
857
Incidents tracked
266
Incidents in 2026
$2,397,608
In fines, where reported
212 of 857 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 452 of 857 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 147 Claude 9 CoCounsel 8 Copilot 8 Gemini 8 Lexis+ AI 6 AI-assisted legal software 4 Westlaw Precision 4 ChatGPT-4o 2 ChatOn 2 Eve 2 Google AI 2 LEAP 2 Perplexity AI 2 AI Overviews 1 Archie 1 Centient AI 1 ChatGPT-4 1 ClearBrief 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 GPT-3.5 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google Scholar 1 Grammarly 1 Grok 1 Irys 1 Legal Genius 1 LegalAI 1 MX2.law 1 OpenCase 1 Strongsuit 1 vLex Fastcase 1

Counts only incidents where the filing court or the reporting named the tool.

Hall of Shame

All Fined 249 Caught, not sanctioned 198 Warned 124 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 57 Filing dismissed 39 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
Reprimanded 2026-07-30
A lawyer copied non-existent and incorrect case law from an AI tool into two tenancy cases, and the Disciplinary Board in ’s-Hertogenbosch reprimanded the lawyer.
Reprimand after AI use in tenancy cases · Disciplinary Board in ’s-Hertogenbosch
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in two tenancy cases was reprimanded.
  • The lawyer copied non-existent and incorrect case law from an AI tool.
  • The sanction was a reprimand.
  • Disciplinary Board in ’s-Hertogenbosch.
  • 30 July 2026; the lawyer had not checked the generated sources.
Outcome unclear 2026-07-29
Plaintiff, acting pro se, cited fabricated case law in her response, which the court determined did not exist, leading to an Order to Show Cause.
Danielle Maloit v. Frank Daniel Maloit · D. Colorado · CO
aivortex.io ↗
The file →
  • Danielle Maloit, acting pro se, in Danielle Maloit v. Frank Daniel Maloit
  • Plaintiff cited fabricated case law and misrepresented authority in her response, which the court determined did not exist (AI-generated hallucination).
  • The outcome was an Order to Show Cause; no specific sanction amount recorded.
  • The incident occurred in the D. Colorado court, federal jurisdiction, Colorado.
  • The incident date is 2026-07-29, and AI (implied, unspecified) was the source of the fabrications.
Fined $15K ChatGPT 2026-07-28
Chicago lawyer Mason Cole was fined $15,000 and referred to state disciplinary authorities for filing appellate briefs containing 10 AI-fabricated or misquoted citations.
Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission · Mason Cole of Cole Sadkin · Illinois Appellate Court for the First District · IL
“We do not know why attorney Cole feels compelled to rush out obviously flawed filings, but this must stop.”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Mason Cole in Scott v. Ill. Hum. Rts. Comm'n was sanctioned.
  • Cole filed briefs with 10 false citations, including fabricated statutory language and nonexistent case law, after using ChatGPT.
  • The court imposed a monetary fine of $15,000 ($1,500 per false citation) and referred him to the ARDC.
  • The incident occurred in the Appellate Court, First District, Illinois.
  • The sanction was issued on August 13, 2026, with the judge noting that AI-hallucinated citations are no different than false citations created by an attorney's own imagination.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-07-28
A filing in Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2143 v. Robibaro cited a fictitious case, and the Condominium Authority Tribunal of Ontario flagged the fake citation.
Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2143 v. Robibaro · Condominium Authority Tribunal of Ontario

Cases that don't exist

  • Waterloo Standard Condominium Corporation No. 697 v. Bugeja (Ontario Superior Court)
courtready.ca ↗
The file →
  • Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2143 v. Robibaro involved a fictitious citation.
  • The filing cited Waterloo Standard Condominium Corporation No. 697 v. Bugeja as real authority.
  • The tribunal flagged the citation as fictitious; no sanction is stated on the page.
  • Condominium Authority Tribunal of Ontario; Ontario.
  • 2026-07-28; the page gives the specific fake citation but no AI tool or judge quote.
Reprimanded 2026-07-27
Patent attorney was publicly reprimanded by the USPTO after submitting an AI-generated Joint Claim Construction Chart containing fictitious record citations.
Magpul Industries Corp. v. Mission First Tactical Group, Inc. · Brian E. Mitchell · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
crossvisionip.com ↗
The file →
  • Magpul Industries Corp. v. Mission First Tactical Group, Inc., involving attorney Brian E. Mitchell.
  • Mitchell used two AI tools to draft and review a Joint Claim Construction Chart that hallucinated patent specification and prosecution history citations.
  • The USPTO issued a public reprimand for professional conduct violations, while the district court imposed no sanctions.
  • The case was before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, followed by USPTO disciplinary proceedings.
  • The USPTO final order was issued July 27, 2026, marking a notable disciplinary action for AI-generated hallucinations in the patent record.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-07-21
Both sides filed briefs with factitious citations and misrepresentations of precedent, and the court struck the objections and related filings.
Evans v. Robertson (4) · E.D. Mich. · MI
“The Court ruled that even a single factitious citation violates its orders and justifies striking filings.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Mitan v. Campbell
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Evans v. Robertson (4); both plaintiff and defendant filings were implicated
  • Briefs contained factitious citations and misrepresentations of precedent
  • The court struck the objections and related filings
  • E.D. Michigan, federal court
  • 2026-07-21; prior sanctions were reiterated and further violations were warned against
Suspension $10K ChatGPT 2026-07-17
A Toronto lawyer was suspended for six months for using ChatGPT to prepare a factum with AI-hallucinated citations and arguments in a family law matter, and for repeatedly lying to the court and the Law Society of Ontario about her AI use.
Law Society of Ontario v Lee · Mary Hyun-Sook Lee (also known as Jisuh Lee) · Law Society of Ontario Tribunal · ON
“While we are concerned by the lawyer’s reckless reliance on the non-existent cases produced by AI, we are extremely troubled by the lawyer’s subsequent repeated lies to the court and to the law society, which are serious integrity failures.”
lawtimesnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Mary Hyun-Sook Lee, also known as Jisuh Lee, was sanctioned by the Law Society Tribunal.
  • She used ChatGPT to create a factum with AI-hallucinated case citations and arguments, and then lied about using AI to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the LSO.
  • She received a six-month license suspension and was ordered to pay the Law Society of Ontario $10,000.
  • The Law Society Tribunal in Ontario handled the case, and contempt of court proceedings were referred to Ontario’s attorney general by Justice Frederick Myers.
  • The sanction order was issued on 2026-07-16, and the tribunal noted her lies to the court and LSO were "serious integrity failures" despite her claims of being unfamiliar with ChatGPT.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-07-16
A DOJ lawyer filed a response citing a nonexistent Sixth Circuit case; Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou chastised the filing but imposed no sanctions.
Daghra v. Hinkley · Carolyn Almassian · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan · MI
““It should be obvious that any attorney who uses AI must scrupulously review its work product to ensure that the cited cases exist and that the citations accurately and fairly represent the underlying case law,””

Cases that don't exist

  • Taylor v. Hott
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Daghra v. Hinkley; DOJ lawyer Carolyn Almassian was tied to the filing.
  • The response cited a nonexistent Sixth Circuit case and was said to likely use generative AI.
  • Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou did not sanction the government.
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  • 7/16/26; the judge warned future filings must not include nonexistent case law.

Showing 391–400 of 857.

Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.