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 2026-06-01
A non-attorney filed AI-generated legal arguments with non-existent cases; the Missouri Court of Appeals fined him $10,000 in the opposing party’s attorney’s fees.
Boatner v. Hickerson · Missouri Court of Appeals · MO
carnahanevans.com ↗
The file →
  • Boatner v. Hickerson involved a non-attorney using AI-generated arguments.
  • Of six cited cases, four did not exist and two were only mentioned by name.
  • The court sanctioned him $10,000 in the opposing party’s attorney’s fees.
  • Missouri Court of Appeals, Missouri.
  • The article says the AI again made up several non-existent cases.
Fined $5K 2026-06-01
Counsel filed appellate briefs with hallucinated quotations, citations, and record-contradicted facts; the Seventh Circuit denied the petition and imposed a $5,000 Rule 46(c) sanction.
Heriberto Perez-Castillo v. Todd W. Blanche · Abdullah Salah · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
casemine.com ↗
The file →
  • Heriberto Perez-Castillo v. Todd W. Blanche; attorney Abdullah Salah was sanctioned.
  • He filed two briefs containing hallucinated quotations/citations and record-contradicted facts.
  • The Seventh Circuit imposed a $5,000 fine under Fed. R. App. P. 46(c).
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; federal; Illinois.
  • June 1, 2026; the court said he did not review either brief for accuracy.
Outcome unclear 2026-05-29
A lawyer submitted filings with impliedly false quotes of case law, leading to an Order to Show Cause from the court.
Garcia v. City of Monte Vista, Colorado et al · D. Colorado · CO
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer was involved in Garcia v. City of Monte Vista, Colorado et al.
  • Filings contained impliedly false quotes of case law.
  • The court issued an Order to Show Cause.
  • The incident occurred in the U.S. District Court of Colorado.
  • Dated May 29, 2026, the AI tool was implied.
Fined $2K 2026-05-28
A lawyer submitted filings with fabricated and misrepresented case law, resulting in an adverse costs order of 2000 USD.
Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. STI-NY, LLC · SC New York · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer was involved in Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. STI-NY, LLC.
  • Fabricated and misrepresented case law were submitted.
  • The court issued an adverse costs order of 2000 USD.
  • The incident occurred in the Supreme Court of New York.
  • Dated May 28, 2026, the AI tool was unidentified.
Referred to the bar 2026-05-28
A lawyer submitted filings with fabricated case law and false quotes, resulting in a bar referral.
EML (a pseudonym) v AFT (a pseudonym) [2026] VCC 734 · County Court of Victoria
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • EML v AFT involved a lawyer using AI-generated content.
  • The filing contained fabricated case law and false quotes.
  • The court issued a Bar Referral against the lawyer.
  • The decision was rendered by the County Court of Victoria, Australia.
  • The order was issued on 28 May 2026.
Warned 2026-05-28
A lawyer submitted filings containing impliedly fabricated case law, false quotes, and misrepresented case law, resulting in a warning.
Roger Patel et al. v. Chandresh Patel et al. · W.D. Kentucky · KY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer was involved in Roger Patel et al. v. Chandresh Patel et al.
  • Filings contained impliedly fabricated case law, false quotes, and misrepresented case law.
  • The court issued a warning.
  • The incident occurred in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
  • Dated May 28, 2026, the AI tool was implied.
Fined $250 2026-05-27
A pro se father cited one nonexistent case using generative AI, and the court sanctioned him $250.
Matter of Julien v. Arthur · Kevin A. Julien · Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · NY
“The father's appellate brief contained a citation to a nonexistent decision purportedly issued by the Appellate Division, First Department, in support of the father's claim of judicial bias.”
nycourts.gov ↗
The file →
  • Matter of Julien v. Arthur involved a pro se litigant.
  • He cited one nonexistent case with generative AI.
  • The court imposed a $250 sanction.
  • Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
  • Decision dated May 27, 2026; the court noted it was only a single AI hallucination.
Referred to the bar 2026-05-27
The court said O'Hara's petition appeared AI-generated, cited non-existent caselaw, and referred the matter to The Florida Bar for sanctions.
Eclectic Synergy, LLC v. Mona Seredin the Estate of Alexander Seredin · John Joseph O'Hara of The O'Hara Law Group, P.A · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · FL
“The submission of fictitious or fabricated case law—whether the product of carelessness, misunderstanding, or reliance on generative artificial-intelligence tools—is sanctionable.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. Masek, 982 So. 2d 1231
  • Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607
caselaw.findlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Eclectic Synergy, LLC v. Mona Seredin the Estate of Alexander Seredin; John Joseph O'Hara of The O'Hara Law Group, P.A.
  • O'Hara filed a certiorari petition with non-existent or misleading citations.
  • The court referred the matter to The Florida Bar; no monetary amount was imposed in this order.
  • District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, in Florida.
  • Decided May 27, 2026; the court said the petition appeared AI-generated and cited non-existent caselaw.
Warned 2026-05-27
A lawyer cited a non-existent authority, which was conceded to be from AI, leading to a warning and exclusion of contentions relying on the fabricated authority.
Williamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, Inc.) · D. Delaware · DE
“The Court identified at least one instance where Plaintiff cited a non-existent authority and informed Plaintiff. Plaintiff conceded the fictitious citation likely resulted from artificial intelligence. The Court excluded any contentions relying on the fabricated authority from its consideration and stated it would consider whether any additional action is required.”
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer for Williamson cited a non-existent authority.
  • The fictitious citation likely resulted from artificial intelligence.
  • The court issued a warning and excluded contentions relying on the fabricated authority.
  • The incident occurred in the U.S. District Court of Delaware.
  • Dated May 27, 2026, the AI tool was unidentified, and the judge considered additional action.

Showing 441–450 of 857.

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