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 $5K Copilot 2026-06-11
Ginsburg filed a brief with a fake case, fake quotes, and incorrect legal propositions, and the court imposed sanctions and struck the response.
McCormick v. Texakoma Financial, Inc. · Amy L.B. Ginsburg · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas · TX
“If someone—even an intern—gets the case name, number, year, and quotation wrong, they are not struggling with research or citation formatting. They are struggling with honesty.”
tcpaworld.com ↗
The file →
  • McCormick v. Texakoma Financial, Inc. against Amy L.B. Ginsburg
  • Brief contained a fake case, fake quotes, and incorrect legal propositions
  • Court ordered a $5,000 penalty and struck the response
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texas
  • June 11, 2026; court also ordered publication, CLE, and future verification certification
Referred to the bar $80K 2026-06-09
Hallucinated cases and quotations, with remnants of AI drafting prompts, led to $80,056 in adverse costs and a referral to bar authorities.
LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone · S.D.N.Y. · NY
aininja.academy ↗
The file →
  • LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone involved hallucinated cases and quotations.
  • Filed documents contained hallucinated cases and quotations, along with visible remnants of AI drafting prompts.
  • The court imposed $80,056 in adverse costs and a referral to bar authorities.
  • The incident occurred in the Southern District of New York.
  • The decision date was June 9, 2026, with a focus on AI drafting issues.
Fined $9K First Drafts 2026-06-08
Judge Sharion Aycock sanctioned four lawyers after both sides filed briefs citing AI-invented cases, cancelled the trial, and paused the proceedings.
Withers v. City of Aberdeen · Kathleen Wilson · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · MS
““This case presents the Court with an unusual scenario — attorneys for both litigants engaged in similar sanctionable conduct,””
legalcheek.com ↗
The file →
  • Contract dispute in the City of Aberdeen fee case before Judge Sharion Aycock.
  • Both sides' filings cited cases the court found did not exist after AI research and drafting.
  • Four lawyers were sanctioned; the two drafting lawyers were fined $2,500 and $3,500, and the other two were fined $1,000 each.
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
  • June 11, 2026; the order said the duty to verify work “is absolute” and “cannot be outsourced to technology or delegated to co-counsel”.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-06-06
The court flagged incorrect and untraceable AI-generated citations relied upon in the decision while upholding the impugned order.
Principal, Woodland House School & Ors. v. Shakeel Ahmad Malik · HC Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Srinagar
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Principal, Woodland House School & Ors. v. Shakeel Ahmad Malik
  • Judge relied on untraceable and fabricated case law citations
  • Court upheld order but explicitly flagged the incorrect citations
  • HC Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Srinagar (India)
  • Decided June 6, 2026
Fined $500 2026-06-05
The court struck a response with fictitious authorities after the respondent admitted using AI, and allowed amendment conditioned on a $500 sanction.
Witkin v. McGreevy · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
apps.oregon.gov ↗
The file →
  • Witkin v. McGreevy involved a respondent who filed a response with fictitious authorities and inaccurate legal arguments.
  • The respondent admitted using AI, but fully complied with the court's show-cause order and clarified each citation.
  • Sanction type: monetary fine of $500 conditioned on filing an amended response.
  • Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon; state court order issued on 2026-06-05.
  • The court granted leave to amend after the respondent agreed to the $500 sanction; the AI tool was not named.
Filing dismissed LegalAI 2026-06-05
The court dismissed a mandamus petition after relators filed supporting documents with nonexistent cases and fabricated quotes generated by LegalAI.
Aldridge v. Tussing · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
“The injection of false precedent undermines the integrity of the proceedings. Doing it repeatedly, and in response to a show cause order, warrants imposition of a meaningful sanction.”
apps.oregon.gov ↗
The file →
  • Aldridge v. Tussing involved relators who filed a mandamus petition with fabricated AI-generated citations and quotes.
  • The Oregon Supreme Court struck the petition and the response, then dismissed the proceeding entirely.
  • Sanction type: dismissal; no monetary amount was imposed in this order.
  • Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon; state court sanction issued on 2026-06-05.
  • The fabrications were attributed to LegalAI, and the court said repeated false precedent warranted a meaningful sanction.
Fined $5K Westlaw Precision 2026-06-03
Two Orange County immigration attorneys filed a brief with nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations; the Ninth Circuit suspended each for six months and fined each $2,500.
Lnu v. Blanche · Mike Singh Sethi; Sethi Law Group; William Rounds; Bill Rounds Attorney at Law PC · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · CA
“We issue this disciplinary order, and explain our reasoning at some length, as a warning to the members of this Court's bar: be aware of the risks of overreliance on generative AI, read everything cited in a court filing—whether drafted by generative AI or not—and disclose quickly and transparently generative AI hallucinations that are inadvertently included in court filings….”

Cases that don't exist

  • Eduardo v. Garland, 28 F.4th 742 (9th Cir. 2022)
  • Lay v. Holder, 729 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2013)
mallick.tech ↗
The file →
  • LNU v. Blanche; attorney Mike Singh Sethi was sanctioned with co-counsel William Rounds.
  • He filed briefs with nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations, later calling them typographical errors.
  • The Ninth Circuit suspended him from practice before the court for six months.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Judge Richard Paez, Carlos Bea, and Danielle Forrest.
  • The order said generative AI hallucinations had been included in filings and warned lawyers to read every citation.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-06-03
The Québec Superior Court set aside a labour arbitrator’s decision after finding the arbitrator used AI to draft reasons containing false, non-existent authorities.
Association des ressources intermédiaires d'hébergement du Québec (ARIHQ) c. Santé Québec - Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal · Michel Jeanniot · Québec Superior Court
“Material parts of the arbitrator’s reasons relied on false references to authorities.”
canliiconnects.org ↗
The file →
  • Association des ressources intermédiaires d'hébergement du Québec (ARIHQ) c. Santé Québec - Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal; labour arbitrator's decision was challenged
  • The arbitrator’s reasons were written with the assistance of artificial intelligence and contained false references to authorities
  • The court set aside the decision; no monetary sanction is stated
  • Québec Superior Court, Québec
  • June 3, 2026; the court described the references as non-existent and “delusional”
Referred to the bar $1 2026-06-02
Reaves Law Firm was sanctioned under Rule 11 after filing motions containing AI-generated hallucinated cases and quotes and failing to produce evidence of a verification process.
Reaves Law Firm, PLLC v. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, et al. · Reaves Law Firm · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee · TN
corporatecomplianceinsights.com ↗
The file →
  • Reaves Law Firm v. Baker Donelson involves sanctions against Reaves Law Firm.
  • The firm filed multiple pleadings containing arguments unsupported by cited cases and fake direct quotes.
  • The federal court sanctioned Reaves Law Firm under Rule 11 after it failed to show proof of a verification process.
  • The order was issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
  • Reaves attempted to blame a departed general counsel, but the court held the firm accountable.

Showing 431–440 of 857.

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