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 $2K 2026-06-22
A Pennsylvania plaintiffs lawyer filed briefs with AI-generated hallucinated citations and was fined $1,500 and suspended from the court for six months.
Brian Kent · Brian Kent · U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania · PA
law.com ↗
The file →
  • Brian Kent, a Pennsylvania plaintiffs attorney, was sanctioned by a federal court in Pennsylvania.
  • He filed briefs containing AI-generated hallucinated citations.
  • The court ordered a $1,500 penalty and a six-month suspension.
  • The matter was in federal court in Pennsylvania.
  • The article says the errors were inadvertent and tool-driven.
Warned 2026-06-22
A lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law, resulting in a warning from the court.
Zhdanovich-Doty v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company · N.D. California · CA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Zhdanovich-Doty v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, a lawyer received a warning.
  • The lawyer submitted filings that contained fabricated case law, implying AI misuse.
  • The court issued a warning to the lawyer.
  • The incident occurred in a federal court, the Northern District of California.
  • On June 22, 2026, a warning was issued after fabricated case law was found in the filings.
Reprimanded 2026-06-22
A lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law, leading to an admonishment from the court.
Hoagland Family Limited Partnership v. Town of Clear Lake · CA Indiana · IN
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Hoagland Family Limited Partnership v. Town of Clear Lake, a lawyer was admonished.
  • The lawyer submitted filings that included fabricated case law, indicating AI-generated content.
  • The court issued an admonishment to the lawyer.
  • The incident occurred in a state court, the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
  • On June 22, 2026, an admonishment was issued after fabricated case law was discovered.
Fined $31K Grok 2026-06-17
Shahryar Mazaheri used AI to draft court filings containing fake and irrelevant citations, and the tribunal ordered him to pay $31,150 in costs.
Mazaheri v Law Society of Ontario · Shahryar Mazaheri · Law Society Tribunal of Ontario · ON
“"But unlike a human, a large language model does not appreciate nuance or exercise judgment or use a moral compass when writing. It just does calculations, and then puts words in the order dictated by statistical probabilities. The calculations are impressive – large volumes of authoritative-sounding text are generated in seconds or minutes. But they are just calculations. And the product only reads or sounds like text written by humans. It isn't the same."”
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Mazaheri v. Law Society of Ontario involved Shahryar Mazaheri.
  • He used AI to prepare a factum, supplementary factum, affidavit, and supplementary affidavit without checking the output.
  • The tribunal ordered costs of $31,150 to the Law Society of Ontario.
  • The decision was by the Law Society Tribunal in Ontario, Canada.
  • The article says the AI output included citations to cases that don’t exist and real cases irrelevant to the points made.
Fined 2026-06-17
An attorney filed multiple court documents, including an appellate brief, containing fabricated citations, leading the Michigan Court of Appeals to issue an opinion holding that an apology is not a cure and sanctioning the attorney.
Joyce Barber v. Lawrence J. Morawa, MD · Ronnie Cromer Jr · Court of Appeals of Michigan · MI
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Barber v Morawa, an unnamed attorney was sanctioned.
  • The attorney filed multiple documents with fabricated citations and delayed correcting them for eight months.
  • The sanction was a monetary fine paid personally by counsel, and the matter was referred to the Attorney Grievance Commission.
  • The Michigan Court of Appeals issued the sanction.
  • The incident date is June 17, 2026, and the court emphasized the objective reasonable-inquiry standard, making good faith irrelevant.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-06-16
Plaintiff counsel submitted filings with AI-driven errors including fabricated citations, false quotes, and mischaracterizations, but no sanctions were imposed given good faith and remedial efforts.
Jacob Doe v. The University of North Carolina System, et al. · U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina · NC
“The Court has refrained from discharging the show cause order pending counsel's preparation of the article.”
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Jacob Doe v. The University of North Carolina System, et al., plaintiff counsel was involved.
  • Counsel submitted filings containing multiple AI-driven errors, including fabricated citations and hallucinated quotations.
  • No sanctions were imposed as counsel acted in good faith and made remedial efforts, despite the court's strong disappointment.
  • The incident occurred in a federal court, the Western District of North Carolina.
  • On June 16, 2026, the court discharged the show-cause order without sanctions, acknowledging counsel's good faith and remedial actions regarding AI misuse.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-06-12
The court noted non-existent case citations in opposition papers but declined to impose sanctions or penalties against appellate counsel.
Vargas v. MTA Bus Co. · SC New York · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Vargas v. MTA Bus Co. involving unnamed appellate counsel
  • Opposition papers contained citations to non-existent AI-generated cases
  • No sanctions or monetary penalties were imposed
  • New York Supreme Court
  • Decided June 12, 2026; court adjusted filing order since underlying law was correct
Fined $6K 2026-06-11
The trial court ordered attorneys representing plaintiffs in a wage and hour class action to pay $5,000 to the opposing party and $1,000 to the court for filing a brief containing non-existent citations, fabricated quotations, and misrepresenting controlling authority due to "evident misuse of generative artificial intelligence (AI)"; the Court of Appeal affirmed the sanctions.
Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC · California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District · CA
“The trial court described the filing as containing “nonexistent citations” and “fictitious quotations,” ultimately imposing sanctions under California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7.”
proskauer.com ↗
The file →
  • In Quinteros v. Harbor Distrib., LLC, unnamed attorneys were sanctioned for AI misuse.
  • The attorneys filed a brief containing non-existent citations, fabricated quotations, and misrepresented controlling authority.
  • They were ordered to pay $5,000 to the opposing party and $1,000 to the court, totaling $6,000 in monetary fines.
  • The sanctions were imposed by a California trial court and affirmed by the California Court of Appeal.
  • The incident date is unspecified, and the sanctions were for "evident misuse of generative artificial intelligence (AI)".

Showing 421–430 of 857.

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