legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

Every incident where a lawyer got caught filing AI-fabricated citations. The Hall of Shame.

Embed this
851
Incidents tracked
262
Incidents in 2026
$2,417,608
In fines, where reported
214 of 851 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 446 of 851 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 151 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 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 251 Caught, not sanctioned 199 Warned 126 Referred to the bar 98 Reprimanded 85 Outcome unclear 53 Filing dismissed 36 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
Fined
The court ordered case removal and denied all compensation to the attorney who delegated checking AI citations to staff.
Farris
nihardaily.com ↗
The file →
  • Farris involved an attorney delegating verification of AI output to staff
  • AI-fabricated citations were submitted to the court without proper verification
  • The court ordered case removal and denied all financial compensation
  • Specific court details were not provided in the text
  • The court held that verification duty cannot be delegated by the signing attorney
Referred to the bar Gemini 2026-09-03
The court struck Deutsche Bank's appellate brief containing four fake citations generated by AI and referred the matter to disciplinary counsel.
Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. · Loishirl W. Hall · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · DC
“The use of artificial intelligence must be accompanied by the application of actual intelligence in its execution.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Abadie v. District of Columbia
  • Cason v. National Consumer Cooperative Bank
  • Osborne v. District of Columbia

+1 more

i-dont-bluebook.ghost.io ↗
The file →
  • Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. involving attorney Loishirl W. Hall and firm McCabe, Weisberg & Conway
  • Attorney filed an appellate brief with four nonexistent case citations generated using an AI search tool
  • The court struck the appellee's brief and referred the matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
  • D.C. Court of Appeals (Washington, D.C.)
  • Google AI search tool was used, and the court ruled that ignorance of generative AI risks is no longer credible
Filing dismissed 2026-09-03
A registered foreign lawyer was struck from the register after filing submissions and an email containing AI-fabricated legal authorities in his own disciplinary proceedings.
Abhishek Kumar · Abhishek Kumar · Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for England and Wales
“This was the first time that a lawyer’s use of artificial intelligence or large language models in legal proceedings had been litigated before the Tribunal”
complexdiscovery.com ↗
The file →
  • Abhishek Kumar of Kim's Law and Rivington Solicitors was struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
  • Kumar submitted two sets of AI-generated documents riddled with fake cases and erroneous citations during his disciplinary proceedings.
  • The tribunal ordered him struck off from the legal profession.
  • The matter was heard before the UK's Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
  • Kumar admitted using AI and cited recklessness, cognitive exhaustion, and ill-health in his defense.
Caught, not sanctioned
Counsel filed a brief with fictitious case citations that the Tax Court said were likely generated by AI, but the opinion did not impose sanctions.
Clinco v. Commissioner · Clinco’s counsel · U.S. Tax Court
“Submitting a brief with fictitious caselaw is a recipe for sanctions.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Cacchillo v. Commissioner
  • Miller v. Commissioner
  • Tefel v. Commissioner
journalofaccountancy.com ↗
The file →
  • Clinco v. Commissioner involved counsel for the taxpayers.
  • The brief cited nonexistent cases in support of a notice-of-deficiency argument.
  • The Tax Court warned that fake citations can lead to sanctions, but imposed none here.
  • U.S. Tax Court; federal; judge Holmes’s opinion.
  • T.C. Memo. 2026-16; the court said the citations suggested something cooked up by AI.
Warned CoCounsel 2026-09-02
A lawyer received a court warning for misrepresenting case law generated using CoCounsel.
Sea Swivel Inc. v. Shuttleslide LLC, et al. · S.D. Florida · FL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Sea Swivel Inc. v. Shuttleslide LLC, et al.
  • A lawyer misrepresented case law in court filings using the AI legal research tool CoCounsel.
  • The court issued a warning to the attorney.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
  • Decision issued on September 2, 2026, involving CoCounsel.
Outcome unclear CoCounsel
A party relied on hallucinated research generated by the specialist legal AI tool CoCounsel.
U.S. v. Farris · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
midwestfrontier.ai ↗
The file →
  • U.S. v. Farris involved hallucinations from a specialized legal AI tool.
  • The court addressed hallucinated citations originating from CoCounsel.
  • Sanction type and amount are not specified in the text.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
  • Highlighted that even specialized legal tools like CoCounsel can hallucinate.
Fined $1K ChatGPT
Richard Bednar filed a brief with fake ChatGPT-generated citations, and the Utah Court of Appeals sanctioned him.
Richard Bednar · Richard Bednar · Utah Court of Appeals · UT
“"here is this case and it supports our position" and the case doesn’t exist.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Royer v. Nelson
  • Wadsworth v. Walmart
  • United States v. Hayes
legal.thomsonreuters.com ↗
The file →
  • Richard Bednar was sanctioned in the Utah Court of Appeals matter.
  • He submitted a brief with fake citations generated by ChatGPT.
  • He was ordered to pay fees, refund client fees, and donate $1,000.
  • Utah Court of Appeals in Utah.
  • The brief included the non-existent case Royer v. Nelson.
Outcome unclear ChatGPT
A lawyer was ordered to notify their client after using ChatGPT to generate three fabricated case citations and one misrepresented case.
Richard Paul Smith v. Verra Mobility Corporation et al. · M.D. Florida · FL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Richard Paul Smith v. Verra Mobility Corporation et al. involved a lawyer.
  • The lawyer used ChatGPT, resulting in fabricated and misrepresented cases.
  • The court ordered the attorney to notify their client.
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
  • Issued on May 1, 2026, following an Order to Show Cause.
Outcome unclear $5K
A court issued a $5,237 adverse costs order against a lawyer who submitted fabricated and misrepresented case law.
Ascent Management, Inc. et al v. Shell Oil Company et al · Montgomery CC, Ohio · OH
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Ascent Management, Inc. et al v. Shell Oil Company et al involved a lawyer.
  • The attorney submitted fabricated and misrepresented case law citations.
  • The court imposed an adverse costs order of $5,237.
  • Decided in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, Ohio.
  • The ruling was issued on April 30, 2026.

Showing 41–50 of 851.

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