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
Reprimanded 2026-05-13
A lawyer was publicly reprimanded and ordered to notify their client and self-refer to the bar for submitting fabricated and misrepresented case law.
Jane Doe 1, et al. v. Mount Saint Mary High School Corporation · W.D. Oklahoma · OK
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Jane Doe 1, et al. v. Mount Saint Mary High School Corporation involving an unnamed lawyer.
  • The attorney relied on an unidentified AI tool to submit fake citations and false quotes.
  • Public reprimand, notice to client, and mandatory self-referral to the state bar.
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
  • Decided May 13, 2026; involved an unidentified AI tool.
Warned 2026-05-12
The court said the plaintiff’s filing contained improperly cited case law and ordered a letter on whether generative AI was used.
Powell v. Borough of Bergenfield · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
“Pro se litigants are not shielded from the sanctions offered by Rule 11”
oslaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Powell v. Borough of Bergenfield; a pro se plaintiff was involved
  • The filing contained improperly cited case law and may have used generative AI
  • The court ordered a letter explaining any AI use and why sanctions should not issue
  • District of New Jersey, New Jersey
  • Order dated 2026-05-12; the court invoked Rule 11
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-05-12
Court struck a pro se plaintiff's summary judgment filings containing three AI-fabricated case citations, declining monetary penalties due to her pro se status.
Gully v. Varghese · New York Supreme Court, Albany County · NY
nycivillaw.blog ↗
The file →
  • Gully v. Varghese involved a pro se plaintiff who submitted AI-fabricated citations.
  • All three legal citations in the plaintiff's summary judgment motion were fake AI fabrications.
  • The court struck the filings but declined monetary penalties because the plaintiff was pro se.
  • Decided in New York Supreme Court, Albany County.
  • Order issued on May 12, 2026, ruling that pro se status does not excuse failing to verify legal authorities.
Fined 2026-05-12
A lawyer was fined 5,000 EUR and referred to the bar association after including false case quotes in court submissions.
Sentenza n. 1352/2026 · Corte d'Appello Bologna
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Sentenza n. 1352/2026 involving an unnamed lawyer.
  • The lawyer submitted court documents containing two false case quotes from an unidentified AI tool.
  • The court imposed a 5,000 EUR fine and referred counsel to the bar.
  • Bologna Court of Appeal (Italy).
  • Decided May 12, 2026; AI tool unidentified.
Fined $6K 2026-05-11
Blackburn was found in contempt for missing payments on a $6,000 sanction imposed after he filed a brief with a hallucinated AI case citation.
Gardner v. Combs et al. · Tyrone A. Blackburn of T.A. Blackburn PLLC · U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by designation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
“"I am going to hold you in contempt," Judge Gordon said, "but I am going to issue an oral admonition."”

Cases that don't exist

  • United States v. Masha
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Gardner v. Combs et al.; Tyrone A. Blackburn of T.A. Blackburn PLLC
  • He filed a brief citing a nonexistent AI-generated case and did not verify it.
  • Judge Gordon imposed a $6,000 fine, later enforcing it through contempt and an oral admonition.
  • U.S. Court of International Trade sitting by designation in the District of New Jersey.
  • May 11, 2026; the judge said he could jail Blackburn but chose a warning instead.
Filing dismissed 2026-05-08
A lawyer filed submissions containing AI-generated, incorrect award extracts, leading the court to dismiss the variation applications.
Applications by BGIS Pty Ltd · BGIS Pty Ltd · Fair Work Commission
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Applications by BGIS Pty Ltd involved a lawyer submitting AI-generated award extracts.
  • The written submissions contained unverified extracts of modern awards.
  • The Fair Work Commission dismissed BGIS's variation applications.
  • The proceeding took place in the Fair Work Commission of Australia.
  • The decision was handed down on 8 May 2026.
Fined 2026-05-08
A lawyer was fined 3,675 BRL and referred to the bar association for presenting three fabricated case citations in court filings.
Nº 0143435-40.2025.8.16.0000 · TJ Parana
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Nº 0143435-40.2025.8.16.0000 involving an unnamed attorney.
  • Counsel submitted three fabricated case law citations to the court.
  • The court imposed a fine of 3,675 BRL and issued a bar referral.
  • Tribunal de Justiça do Paraná (Brazil).
  • Decided May 8, 2026; implied generative AI use.
Fined $250 2026-05-07
An attorney was publicly reprimanded, ordered to notify their client, and fined $250 after submitting fabricated and misrepresented case law.
Kristina Crist v. Roy Chris West, et al. · W.D. Oklahoma · OK
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Kristina Crist v. Roy Chris West, et al. involving an unnamed attorney.
  • Counsel submitted court filings containing fabricated and misrepresented case law.
  • The court imposed a public reprimand, client notification, and a $250 sanction.
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
  • Decided May 7, 2026; involved an unidentified AI tool.

Showing 461–470 of 857.

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