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
Referred to the bar 2026-05-22
ICC Judge Mullen rebuked Pinsent Masons for misleading the court twice by citing a non-existent insolvency rule and repeating the error in an AI-drafted letter.
Anthony Malcolm Cork & Anor v Mark Smith · Pinsent Masons LLP · High Court of England and Wales, Chancery Division
“legal professionals bear ultimate responsibility for their work and cannot outsource the process of legal research or of legal reasoning to an AI.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Cork & Anor v Smith [2026] EWHC 1199 (Ch) involved law firm Pinsent Masons.
  • The firm cited a non-existent Insolvency Rule and used AI to draft an explanatory letter repeating the error.
  • The judge ordered a copy of the judgment sent to the SRA despite the firm's self-referral.
  • The ruling was delivered by ICC Judge Mullen in the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division).
  • On May 22, 2026, the court found the firm misled the court twice on a block transfer application.
Reprimanded ChatGPT 2026-05-21
H. Gregory Harp filed a response with false quotations attributed to real cases and was sanctioned by Judge Harold D. Mooty III.
Jackie Miller v. Regions Bank · H. Gregory Harp · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · AL
““Lawyers make errors. Competent and ethical lawyers own them””
findlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Jackie Miller v. Regions Bank; attorney H. Gregory Harp
  • Harp filed a response with false quotations in support of summary judgment briefing
  • He was sanctioned and suspended for six months in the Northern District of Alabama
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Alabama
  • May 21, 2026; the court suspected generative AI and Harp later admitted using free ChatGPT for proofreading
Fined $2K 2026-05-21
A lawyer submitted filings with fabricated and misrepresented case law, resulting in a monetary sanction, bar referral, mandatory audit, and adverse costs.
In re the Marriage of Amy Haddock and Justin Blu Haddock · DC Oklahoma · OK
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In re the Marriage of Amy Haddock and Justin Blu Haddock involved a lawyer using an implied AI tool.
  • The lawyer filed documents with fabricated and misrepresented case law.
  • The lawyer received a $2,000 monetary sanction, bar referral, mandatory audit of firm knowledge base, and adverse costs (later $20,752).
  • The incident occurred in the DC Oklahoma, a state court.
  • The sanction was issued on May 21, 2026, due to AI-generated legal fabrications.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-05-20
Pro se plaintiffs used AI to draft filings and submitted fabricated legal authority; the court discussed the misconduct but imposed no sanction in this decision.
Torres v. Spraker · Jose Torres and Aidria Torres · Supreme Court, Montgomery County · NY

Cases that don't exist

  • Gurpreet Kaur v Desso, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129902
  • Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 779 F. Supp. 3d 341, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78895, 2025 WL 1195925
  • Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443
nycourts.gov ↗
The file →
  • Torres v. Spraker; Jose Torres and Aidria Torres were the parties using AI.
  • They admitted using artificial intelligence to draft legal documents and cited no caselaw.
  • The court noted AI is not legal authority and discussed fabricated citations.
  • Supreme Court, Montgomery County, New York; Judge Rebecca A. Slezak.
  • May 20, 2026; the opinion cited Mata and other AI-citation cases, but imposed no sanction here.
Caught, not sanctioned MX2.law 2026-05-18
Justice Kenneth Salinger denied T. Michael Morgan’s pro hac vice motion after he was sanctioned in Wyoming for filing motions citing eight nonexistent AI-hallucinated cases.
Glenn Wilder and Others v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Others · T. Michael Morgan · Suffolk County Superior Court · MA
“Attorney Morgan disclosed that he was sanctioned by the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming for violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) because he signed motions in limine without reading them and, as a result, permitted the filing of motions citing eight non-existent cases that had been hallucinated by Morgan & Morgan's in-house Artificial Intelligence ("AI") platform.”
aei.org ↗
The file →
  • Wilder v. President & Fellows of Harvard College involving attorney T. Michael Morgan
  • Disclosed a prior Wyoming sanction for submitting 8 AI-hallucinated cases generated by an in-house platform
  • Motion to appear pro hac vice was denied by the court
  • Massachusetts Superior Court under Justice Kenneth W. Salinger
  • Decided May 18, 2026, demonstrating that past AI sanctions impact future pro hac vice applications
Fined $1K Claude 2026-05-18
A lawyer filed a brief with Claude-generated fabricated quotes and was fined $1,000 plus ordered to take an AI-assistance course.
Herbert Brooks v. Lowes Home Centers LLC · W.D. Louisiana · LA
“Ignorance of the risks of AI usage is no longer an excuse,”
cebudailynews.inquirer.net ↗
The file →
  • Jerry Edwards Jr. sanctioned the lawyer in a Louisiana district court matter.
  • The brief contained seven AI-generated quotes attributed to prior rulings that were false or misrepresented.
  • The court fined him $1,000 and ordered a three-hour AI-assisted legal practice course.
  • Louisiana district court, Louisiana.
  • The sanctions order was issued May 18; the lawyer said a clerk had caught errors in an earlier draft and then he used Claude to fix them.
Reprimanded 2026-05-16
A lawyer was publicly admonished by the court following implied generative AI misuse in filings.
Waggeh v. Utility Workers Union of America Local 1-2 et al. · S.D. New York · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Waggeh v. Utility Workers Union of America Local 1-2 et al. involving an unnamed lawyer.
  • The attorney submitted court filings with implied AI-generated hallucinations.
  • The court issued a public admonishment.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  • Decided May 16, 2026; AI tool was not identified.
Warned Claude 2026-05-15
A motion to quash included Claude-generated phantom quotations, and the lawyers apologized to the court; the page does not report a sanction order.
AFGE v. Trump · Binnall Law Group PLLC; Jason Greaves; Jesse Binnall; Lindsay McKasson · US District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
““While I reviewed the cited cases generally to confirm their applicability, as well as many other cases that I reviewed, I did not double check the quotations and obviously did not read the cited cases carefully,” Greaves wrote.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • AFGE v. Trump involved Binnall Law Group PLLC lawyers.
  • Jason Greaves used Claude Console to draft a motion to quash a subpoena.
  • The motion included “phantom” quotations, prompting apologies to the court.
  • Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California, California.
  • Date: 2026-05-15; the page describes the misuse but reports no sanction order.
Fined $2K 2026-05-14
Janelle Melissa Lewis submitted documents containing fabricated case law, leading to a monetary sanction and bar suspension.
In the Matter of Janelle Melissa Lewis, an attorney and counselor-at-law · Janelle Melissa Lewis · App. Div. 1st Dept (NY) · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In the Matter of Janelle Melissa Lewis, an attorney and counselor-at-law, involved Janelle Melissa Lewis using an implied AI tool.
  • The attorney filed documents containing fabricated case law.
  • The attorney received a $1,500 monetary sanction and bar suspension.
  • The incident occurred in the App. Div. 1st Dept (NY), a state court.
  • The sanction was issued on May 14, 2026, due to AI-generated legal fabrications.
Warned 2026-05-13
A cited authority could not be located, the reference was disregarded, and the court warned that fabricated authorities generated by AI can lead to sanction.
World Kuk Sool Association, Inc v Alex Paul · not stated
“It is important for parties to be aware that they have a duty not to mislead the tribunal and that the fabrication of authorities (whether intentionally or because references generated through Artificial Intelligence have not been verified) can lead to sanction.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • World Kuk Sool Association, Inc v Alex Paul involved [redacted name].
  • A citation was checked and then disregarded after it could not be found.
  • The court warned that fabricated authorities can lead to sanction.
  • Court not stated on the page.
  • 13 May 2026; the court said AI-generated references must be verified.

Showing 451–460 of 857.

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