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 2026-05-07
Judge Wang imposed a $5,000 sanction on Christopher I. Kachouroff and his firm for misrepresenting a real district court decision as binding Tenth Circuit precedent.
Coomer v. Lindell/MyPillow, Inc. · Christopher I. Kachouroff · U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado · CO

Cases that don't exist

  • Capital Solutions, LLC v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc., 695 F. Supp. 2d 1149
aiforlegalinstitute.com ↗
The file →
  • Coomer v. Lindell involved attorney Christopher I. Kachouroff and his law firm.
  • Presented a real district court decision as binding Tenth Circuit precedent for a proposition it expressly disclaimed.
  • Court imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction pursuant to Rule 11.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
  • Order reported on 2026-05-09 highlights sanctions for misattributing and misquoting real authority.
Warned 2026-05-06
A litigant in person filed AI-generated submissions with hallucinated authorities, and the tribunal warned that no person has immunity from sanction.
Rafique v HMRC · First-tier Tribunal
“no person has immunity from sanction”
searchthe.law ↗
The file →
  • Rafique v HMRC is the named case.
  • The submissions were found to be AI-generated with hallucinated authorities.
  • The tribunal stated that fabricated authorities cited as genuine are contempt of court.
  • The court was the First-tier Tribunal.
  • Decided 6 May 2026; the article says it was a warning shot for litigants in person.
Caught, not sanctioned Claude 2026-05-06
A court filing in the Trump layoffs case contained phantom legal quotations generated by Claude Console, prompting sanctions scrutiny.
Trump layoffs court filing involving phantom legal quotations · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · NY
incidentdatabase.ai ↗
The file →
  • Trump layoffs court filing involving phantom legal quotations
  • Claude Console generated the false legal quotations in the filing
  • The page does not say a sanction was imposed
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
  • 2026-05-06; the incident was about fabricated quotations, not citations
Warned ChatGPT 2026-05-05
Kelly Guagenty filed a brief with AI-caused citation errors, mischaracterizations and an improper quotation; Judge Stacey D. Neumann ordered AI training and new safeguards but no fine.
Jessica Fuller v Hyde School · Karen Guagenty · U.S. District Court for the District of Maine · ME
“Although AI can be a useful aid in research and drafting, its use does not diminish an attorney's nondelegable duties of diligence, candor, and reasonable inquiry.”
habeas.ai ↗
The file →
  • FULLER v. HYDE SCHOOL involved Attorney Kelly Guagenty.
  • She submitted two filings with AI-generated erroneous legal citations.
  • The court imposed non-monetary sanctions.
  • United States District Court for the District of Maine, Maine.
  • May 5, 2026; counsel said the AI used was either Claude or ChatGPT.
Suspension 2026-05-05
The Georgia Supreme Court suspended Deborah Leslie for six months after she filed briefs with phony AI-generated case law and ordered extra continuing education.
Hannah Payne murder appeal · Deborah Leslie · Supreme Court of Georgia · GA
““In reviewing the trial court’s order denying the motion for a new trial, there are at least five citations to cases that don’t exist, and there’s at least five more citations to cases that do not support the proposition for which they are cited, including three quotations that don’t exist,””
ajc.com ↗
The file →
  • Deborah Leslie, a Clayton County assistant district attorney, was sanctioned by the Georgia Supreme Court.
  • She filed briefs loaded with phony case law produced with artificial intelligence.
  • The court suspended her for six months and required additional continuing education.
  • The sanction came from the Georgia Supreme Court in Georgia.
  • May 5, 2026; Justice Benjamin Land wrote the opinion and warned Georgia lawyers about AI misuse.
Fined $1K 2026-05-01
Barsotti filed arguments citing three nonexistent cases; the magistrate fined her $1,000 and ordered an hour of AI-ethics training.
Jessica Barsotti · Jessica Barsotti · U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson · CA
“The Court does not prohibit or oppose the use of artificial intelligence in legal advocacy, so long as counsel independently verifies the accuracy of AI-generated content.”
sfchronicle.com ↗
The file →
  • Jessica Barsotti filed arguments in the BART case using three nonexistent cases.
  • A federal magistrate found the citations were evidently produced by AI.
  • The court fined her $1,000 and ordered one hour of training.
  • U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson, federal court in California.
  • Ruling this month; the judge said counsel must independently verify AI-generated content.
Warned 2026-04-30
A lawyer cited fabricated case law generated by AI and received an admonishment and warning.
Pham v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 694 · Federal Court
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Pham v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship involved a lawyer using AI.
  • The filing included a fabricated case law citation.
  • The court issued an admonishment and warning.
  • The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.
  • The decision was issued on 30 April 2026.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-04-29
A pro se plaintiff filed a brief with fabricated citations while seeking leave to amend; the court struck the motion for AI errors and procedural violations.
Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Company · D. Ariz. · AZ
“While the use of [generative AI] is not necessarily problematic, the failure to confirm the accuracy of the filing is. ... Plaintiff’s pro se status does not relieve her of this requirement.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Company involved a pro se plaintiff.
  • Her brief included at least two fabricated case citations and an irrelevant real case.
  • The court struck the motion from the record.
  • D. Ariz., federal court in Arizona.
  • April 29, 2026; the court said the filing was not verified for accuracy.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-04-29
A self-represented appellant cited two nonexistent cases and one irrelevant real case; the court treated all issues as waived and affirmed summary judgment.
Nisland Asset Investment, LLC v. Gericke · Iowa Ct. App. · IA
“We do not have a double standard for those represented by counsel and those who are unrepresented – we expect all to follow our procedures. … We have repeatedly stressed that self-represented litigants and attorneys alike have a duty to independently verify the authenticity and veracity of all sources and assertions when relying on artificial intelligence tools to prepare trial or appellate court filings.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Nisland Asset Investment, LLC v. Gericke involved a self-represented homeowner.
  • Her appellate brief cited two nonexistent cases and one irrelevant real case.
  • The court deemed every issue waived and affirmed summary judgment.
  • Iowa Court of Appeals, state court in Iowa.
  • April 29, 2026; the court emphasized independent verification of AI-assisted sources.
Fined $2K Lexis+ AI 2026-04-28
A lawyer was sanctioned $2,500 and ordered to report to other courts after submitting fabricated case law produced via LexisNexis+ (Protégé).
Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc. et al. · C.D. California · CA
habeas.ai ↗
The file →
  • Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc. et al. involved an unnamed lawyer.
  • The attorney submitted fabricated case law generated by an AI tool.
  • The court imposed a $2,500 monetary sanction and reporting to other courts.
  • The case was heard in the Central District of California.
  • Decided on April 28, 2026, using LexisNexis+ (Protégé).

Showing 471–480 of 857.

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