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 $10K Lexis+ AI 2026-07-02
An AI-assisted brief filed in a civil appeal contained fabricated citations and inaccurate quotations, and the court imposed $10,500 in sanctions on the attorney and his firm.
Landberg v. City of New York · Michael Sanders; Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff PLLC · Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, Second Department · NY
“"It's striking, concerning, disappointing, and saddening to think that members of the bar would forward cases to a court that don't exist, and to think that the lawyers on the other side of that didn’t read it for whatever reason, didn’t check it."”
forchellilaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Michael Sanders and Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff PLLC were sanctioned.
  • Sanders filed a brief containing fake citations and fake quotations from AI-assisted research.
  • The court imposed $10,500 total: $8,000 on Sanders and $2,500 on the firm.
  • Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Second Department, New York.
  • June 26, 2026 article; Sanders said the citations came from hallucinated AI and he failed to verify them.
Filing dismissed 2026-07-01
A self-represented litigant used an AI chatbot to generate documents and referenced evidence that could not be produced, leading to the dismissal of his claim.
Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1245 · Mr Ba (self-represented litigant) · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
“AI is not a legal advisor, it owes no duty to the Court or the administration of justice and owes no duty to act in the best interests of [the applicant] or to observe regulatory or ethical standards, including in its engagement with other practitioners and parties.”
tagalliances.com ↗
The file →
  • The case involved Mr Ba, a self-represented litigant, whose claim was dismissed.
  • Mr Ba relied on AI-generated documents and referred to evidence in a 'Submission Letter' that he could not produce.
  • The court dismissed his claim, noting his conduct was a 'pattern of obstruction and prevarication' and an 'abuse of process'.
  • The incident occurred in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
  • The incident date is not specified, and the court inferred that the documents referred to by the AI did not exist.
Caught, not sanctioned Perplexity AI 2026-07-01
Counsel filed a brief with fictitious citations and a corrected brief that kept the fabricated legal synthesis; the court ordered the lawyer and firm to show cause.
Kevin Leiske et al. v. Robert Gregory Kidd et al. · Richard P. Rollo; Richards, Layton & Finger · Delaware Court of Chancery · DE
“"Counsel cannot discharge those obligations by relying on a paralegal, much less on an artificial intelligence program."”

Cases that don't exist

  • Perconti v. Thornton Oil Corp.
litigationsentinel.com ↗
The file →
  • In Kevin Leiske et al. v. Robert Gregory Kidd et al., a lawyer faced judicial scrutiny.
  • The lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law, false quotes, and misrepresented case law, which were attributed to an AI tool.
  • The court issued an order to show cause, indicating a potential sanction.
  • The incident occurred in the Delaware Chancery Court, a state court.
  • On July 1, 2026, the court acted after the use of Perplexity AI was identified as the source of the errors.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-06-29
A lawyer submitted filings containing false quotes from case law, but no sanctions were imposed.
Marquez v. Dreiling · D. Kansas · KS
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Marquez v. Dreiling, a lawyer was identified.
  • The lawyer submitted filings that included false quotes from case law, suggesting AI-generated content.
  • No sanction was imposed despite the false quotes.
  • The incident took place in a federal court, the District of Kansas.
  • On June 29, 2026, the court decided not to impose sanctions after this incident.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-06-26
A mandamus petition relied on multiple AI-generated hallucinations and misrepresentations of precedent, but the majority did not impose sanctions.
Ex parte A.I.F.-H. f/k/a A.I.F. · CA Alabama · AL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Ex parte A.I.F.-H. f/k/a A.I.F., a pro se litigant was involved.
  • A mandamus petition relied on multiple AI-generated hallucinations, including a fabricated case citation and false quotes.
  • The court's majority did not impose sanctions, though a dissent argued for dismissal.
  • The case was heard in the Court of Appeals of Alabama, a state court.
  • On June 26, 2026, the court decided against sanctions despite the AI-generated errors.
Outcome unclear 2026-06-23
A lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law, with no reported sanction outcome.
Rodney Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. · N.D. Texas · TX
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Rodney Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a lawyer was identified.
  • The lawyer submitted filings that included fabricated case law, implying AI involvement.
  • No specific sanction outcome was reported for this incident.
  • The incident took place in a federal court, the Northern District of Texas.
  • On June 23, 2026, the court noted the fabricated case law but the outcome regarding sanctions is not specified.
Outcome unclear 2026-06-23
A lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law, leading to an order to explain.
Compania General de Combustibles S.A., et al. v. RGR Global Logistics, LLC, et al. · S.D. Texas · TX
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Compania General de Combustibles S.A., et al. v. RGR Global Logistics, LLC, et al., a lawyer faced judicial inquiry.
  • The lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law, indicative of AI misuse.
  • The court issued an order to explain the fabricated content.
  • The incident occurred in a federal court, the Southern District of Texas.
  • On June 23, 2026, the court ordered an explanation after discovering the fabricated case law.
Outcome unclear 2026-06-23
A lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated and misrepresented case law, leading to an order to show cause.
Xinyue Hippe v. Retention Brands, LLC · E.D. Wisconsin · WI
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Xinyue Hippe v. Retention Brands, LLC, a lawyer was under court scrutiny.
  • The lawyer submitted filings with fabricated and misrepresented case law, suggesting AI-generated content.
  • The court issued an order to show cause regarding the problematic filings.
  • The incident occurred in a federal court, the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
  • On June 23, 2026, an order to show cause was issued after the discovery of fabricated and misrepresented case law.
Referred to the bar 2026-06-22
A lawyer filed fabricated case law, and the court referred the matter to the bar.
FHMC, LLC et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. · Jesse Schaefer · CA Arizona (1d) · AZ
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • FHMC, LLC et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc.; lawyer not named on the page.
  • The filing contained fabricated case law.
  • The court issued a bar referral.
  • CA Arizona (1d); state appellate court in Arizona.
  • 2026-06-22; the page gives no AI tool name.

Showing 411–420 of 857.

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