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
Fined 2026-07-15
A pro se appellant filed a brief with six deficient citations, including two non-existent AI-generated cases, and was ordered to pay a portion of his sister's legal fees.
Estate of Acciavatti, Dineen/Shibata v. Kotchka · Jeffrey Kotchka · Arizona Court of Appeals · AZ
“Litigants who file documents with the courts remain directly and personally responsible for the content, accuracy, and quality of legal filings submitted to all courts.”
jshfirm.com ↗
The file →
  • Pro se appellant Jeffrey Kotchka was sanctioned in Estate of Acciavatti, Dineen/Shibata v. Kotchka
  • Kotchka used AI to write his appellate brief, which included two completely non-existent case citations
  • The court imposed a monetary sanction requiring him to pay a portion of his sister's legal fees
  • Arizona Court of Appeals (State jurisdiction, Arizona)
  • Decision issued on July 15, 2026; Kotchka admitted using AI without consulting attorneys or standard legal tools
Fined $30K Westlaw Precision 2026-07-14
Attorney Gregory W. Mitchell filed Motions to Quash containing fabricated citations and was sanctioned $29,877 jointly and severally with creditors.
In re Rosslyn2016, LLC and Texas Esencia 2019 LLC · Gregory W. Mitchell · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas · TX
“Mitchell's suggestion that the "Precision" version of Westlaw, which is a generative AI tool offered by Westlaw, should be given different treatment from non-legal AI tools demonstrates Mitchell's disregard for the General Orders of the Southern District of Texas.”
nydailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
  • Rosslyn2016, LLC and Texas Esencia 2019 LLC; attorney Gregory W. Mitchell sanctioned.
  • Submitted Motions to Quash containing fabricated quotations and nonexistent legal citations without verifying them.
  • Ordered to pay $29,877 in attorneys' fees and costs jointly and severally, plus complete 6 hours of CLE on generative AI.
  • U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.
  • Order issued July 14, 2026; Mitchell claimed citations came from a template and noted using Westlaw AI tools.
Warned 2026-07-13
A lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law and false quotes, resulting in a warning.
Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al. · D. Nevada · NV
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al.
  • Attorney included a fabricated case and false quotes in a legal brief
  • Court issued a formal warning
  • US District Court for the District of Nevada
  • Decided July 13, 2026; unidentified AI tool was used
Reprimanded 2026-07-13
Attorney Erin Rich was ordered to take CLE courses after submitting briefings with embellished and false factual statements generated by AI.
James F. v. Commissioner of Social Security · Erin Rich · E.D. Michigan · MI
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • James F. v. Commissioner of Social Security involving attorney Erin Rich
  • Submitted briefs with false medical record facts after firm used AI for summaries
  • Non-monetary sanctions including mandatory CLE courses on ethics and AI
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
  • Decided July 13, 2026; court found Rule 11 violation was willful within firm command
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.
Referred to the bar 2026-07-10
A lawyer filed fabricated and false-quote citations, and the court partly struck the brief, imposed adverse costs, and referred the matter to the bar.
Marion Parnell, Jr. v. Florida Department of Corrections · 11th Cir. CA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Marion Parnell, Jr. v. Florida Department of Corrections; lawyer not named on the page.
  • The filing used fabricated case law and false quotes.
  • The court partly struck the brief, imposed adverse costs, and made a bar referral.
  • 11th Cir. CA; federal appellate court.
  • 2026-07-10; the page gives no AI tool name.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-07-08
The CPS filed submissions citing two non-existent legal cases in an extradition appeal, and the High Court accepted its apology without imposing sanctions.
Tobosaru v Court of Law Craiova, Romania [2026] EWHC 1720 (Admin) · Crown Prosecution Service · High Court
“It would be naive to assume that there will not be an increasing use of artificial intelligence in legal work in future; indeed, that may be both necessary and beneficial.”
newgatesolicitors.com ↗
The file →
  • Tobosaru v Court of Law Craiova, Romania [2026] EWHC 1720 (Admin); Crown Prosecution Service
  • CPS submissions in an extradition appeal cited two non-existent legal cases
  • No sanction was imposed; the court accepted the CPS’s apology and found no deliberate attempt to mislead
  • High Court
  • July 6, 2026; the false references were likely to have originated from generative artificial intelligence
Referred to the bar 2026-07-07
An attorney was fined €1,800 and referred to the bar for submitting six fabricated citations, with the fine tied to the cost of a verified legal AI tool.
Recurso de Suplicación 0005472/2025 · T.S.X. Galicia
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Recurso de Suplicación 0005472/2025
  • Lawyer cited six fabricated legal precedents in appeal
  • Bar referral and €1,800 fine calculated based on annual cost of verified legal AI
  • Tribunal Superior de Xustiza de Galicia (Spain)
  • Decided July 7, 2026; court noted verified AI tools like Harvey or GenIA-L prevent errors

Showing 401–410 of 857.

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