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 $1K CoCounsel 2026-04-28
A magistrate judge sanctioned Lenden Webb after Webb Law Group filed a brief with a fake citation partly caused by AI use and poor supervision.
Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (2) · Lenden Webb / Webb Law Group · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
vibegraveyard.ai ↗
The file →
  • Hill v. Workday involved Lenden Webb and Webb Law Group.
  • A discovery filing contained a fake citation caused in part by AI use and lack of supervision.
  • The court ordered a $1,001 personal payment and firmwide corrective steps.
  • The sanction came from the Northern District of California.
  • On 2026-04-28, Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang required CLE and circulation of court materials; the page names Westlaw CoCounsel.
Warned 2026-04-28
Judge Adam B. Abelson threatened sanctions against two self-represented litigants if they kept filing frivolous motions or fabricated legal citations.
Ali Behroz Aziz and Shinkay Aziz matter · U.S. District Court for Maryland · MD
“Although the use of AI tools for legal research or drafting is not inherently improper, Plaintiffs’ avalanche of filings here, whether AI-generated or not, have burdened the Court, advanced frivolous arguments, misstated the record, and fabricated legal authorities,”
thedailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
  • Two self-represented litigants, Ali Behroz Aziz and Shinkay Aziz, were warned by Judge Adam B. Abelson.
  • Their filings were suspected to be AI-drafted and included fabricated legal authorities.
  • The court threatened sanctions if they continued filing frivolous motions or fake citations.
  • U.S. District Court for Maryland, federal court in Maryland.
  • April 28, 2026; the judge said the filings burdened the court and fabricated legal authorities.
Reprimanded 2026-04-28
A former Assistant United States Attorney filed a government brief with fabricated quotations and misstated holdings from Fourth Circuit opinions, leading to a public reprimand.
Fivehouse v. U.S. Dept. of Defense · Rudy E. Renfer · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina · NC
“The court said courts must move “beyond admonitions and reprimands into more punitive sanctions.””
theinternetninja.com ↗
The file →
  • Fivehouse v. U.S. Dept. of Defense involved Assistant U.S. Attorney Rudy E. Renfer.
  • Renfer used an unnamed generative AI tool to rebuild a lost brief, resulting in fabricated quotes and misstated holdings.
  • The court issued a public reprimand and declined a monetary fine because Renfer had already lost his job.
  • The matter was decided by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
  • The sanction order was issued on April 28, 2026, using an unnamed generative AI drafting product.
Fined $5K Claude 2026-04-27
Raja Rajan filed court papers with made-up AI-generated case citations; Judge Kai N. Scott imposed a $5,000 sanction and required extra AI-and-ethics CLE.
Bunce v. Visual Tech. Innovations, Inc. · Raja Rajan · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
“any first-year law student knows you have to verify the authority cited, and warned that a third strike would mean referral to Pennsylvania's disciplinary board.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Bunce v. Visual Tech. Innovations Inc.; Raja Rajan of Cherry Hill, NJ
  • He used made-up, AI-generated case citations in filings for a second time
  • Judge Kai N. Scott fined him $5,000 and ordered additional CLE
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • 2026-04-20; Scott said there was no valid reason for not verifying the citations
Fined $5K 2026-04-27
Raja Rajan filed an AI-written brief with six false citations, and Judge Kai N. Scott sanctioned him $5,000 after a prior $2,500 sanction.
Raja Rajan matter · Raja Rajan · U.S. District Court (Philadelphia federal court) · NJ
compliancehub.wiki ↗
The file →
  • Raja Rajan was sanctioned again for AI hallucinations.
  • He used one AI chatbot to draft a brief and another to check citations.
  • The court imposed a $5,000 sanction after an earlier $2,500 sanction.
  • U.S. District Court (Philadelphia federal court); Judge Kai N. Scott.
  • April 27, 2026; the judge warned of a disciplinary referral if it happened again.
Referred to the bar $17K 2026-04-24
A lawyer submitted filings with fabricated case law and false quotes, resulting in an adverse costs order, doubled costs, filing prohibition, and bar referral.
Laurie Ibach and Mark Stewart v. Bruce Stewart · Counsel for Laurie Ibach and Mark Stewart · Alabama Supreme Court · AL
“nothing to review”
alabamaworkerscompblawg.com ↗
The file →
  • Laurie Ibach and Mark Stewart v. Bruce Stewart involved a lawyer using an unidentified AI tool.
  • The lawyer submitted filings with fabricated case law and false quotes.
  • The lawyer faced an adverse costs order, doubled costs, filing prohibition, and a bar referral, totaling $17,200.
  • The incident occurred in the SC Alabama, a state court.
  • The sanction was issued on April 24, 2026, due to AI-generated legal fabrications.
Referred to the bar LEAP 2026-04-23
AML Legal filed appeal papers with incorrect legal citations suspected to be AI-generated, and HHJ Grimshaw referred the matter to the regulator.
Rodney v Gee’z Micro Bar & Pitstop · AML Legal; Kossar Qureshi; Mahmood Hussain · His Honour Judge Grimshaw
“Misleading material was placed before the court in terms of mis-cited legal authorities, said to support propositions that they simply did not, when even the most simple of checks would have shown that to not be the case, or shown it to be the case, i.e. that they were incorrect,”
regulationandcomplianceoffice.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Rodney v Gee’z Micro Bar & Pitstop involved AML Legal, Kossar Qureshi, and Mahmood Hussain.
  • The firm submitted three documents with incorrect citations suspected to have been produced with generative AI.
  • HHJ Grimshaw referred the matter to the regulator; no monetary sanction was stated.
  • Court: civil appeal application, West Midlands, England and Wales.
  • Date not given; the judge said simple checks would have caught the mis-cited authorities.
Fined $8K 2026-04-22
Appellant's opening brief used fabricated law from generative AI; the court struck it, denied amendment, and ordered appellant's attorneys to pay respondent's fees.
Williams v. Honl · Abby Shearer · Court of Appeals of Oregon · OR
“The brief on file “contain[ed] fabricated quotations and propositions of law falsely attributed to existing cases.””
caselaw.findlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Williams v. Honl; appellant's attorney Abby Shearer
  • Opening brief contained fabricated quotations and propositions of law from AI research
  • Court ordered $8,044.25 in attorney fees, not dismissal
  • Court of Appeals of Oregon, decided in Oregon
  • April 22, 2026; court said the brief had fabricated law and cited generative AI as the cause
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2026-04-18
Sullivan & Cromwell filed an emergency motion with AI hallucinations and inaccurate citations, then apologized and corrected the filing before any sanctions order.
In re Prince Global Holdings Limited, et al. · Sullivan & Cromwell LLP · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · NY
“"Hallucinations" are instances in which artificial intelligence tools fabricate case citations, misquote authorities, or generate non-existent legal sources,”
reuters.com ↗
The file →
  • Prince Global Holdings bankruptcy matter; Sullivan & Cromwell was the firm involved.
  • A filing contained inaccurate citations and other errors, including AI hallucinations.
  • No sanction is reported; the firm apologized and said it would correct the filing.
  • The matter was in Manhattan before Chief Judge Martin Glenn.
  • On 2025-04-18, partner Andrew Dietderich wrote the judge; the errors were caught by Boies Schiller Flexner.

Showing 481–490 of 857.

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