legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
151
Incidents tracked
26
Incidents in 2026
$542,786
In fines, where reported
50 of 151 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 60 of 151 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 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 53 Caught, not sanctioned 32 Warned 19 Referred to the bar 17 Reprimanded 13 Filing dismissed 10 Outcome unclear 6 Suspension 1

Showing 41–50 of 151 incidents involving ChatGPT. Clear filters

Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
An attorney used ChatGPT to draft a brief that cited made-up cases, and the resulting case was later recognized as fabricated.
Varghese v. China Southern Airlines

Cases that don't exist

  • Varghese v. China Southern Airlines
zdnet.com ↗
The file →
  • Varghese v. China Southern Airlines involved an attorney who used ChatGPT to prepare a legal brief.
  • The brief contained legal cases that did not actually exist.
  • The page does not name a sanction in this incident.
  • The article says the problem case was fabricated by ChatGPT.
  • The page gives no judge, court, or sanction date for this incident.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A litigant in person filed a submission using a legal phrase that looked Scottish or American, and the judge said it had the hallmarks of ChatGPT.
Reddan v An Bord Pleanála · High Court of Ireland
“This sounds like something that derived from an artificial intelligence source. It has all the hallmarks of ChatGPT, or some similar AI tool.”
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
  • Reddan v An Bord Pleanála involved a litigant in person.
  • The filing used a phrase not used in Ireland and suggested AI generation.
  • No sanction is described on the page.
  • High Court of Ireland.
  • The judge said it had the hallmarks of ChatGPT or similar AI.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A litigant in person used ChatGPT to draft an appeal submission containing fake cases, and the ruling reiterated that an unrepresented person must not mislead the court.
Barton v Wright Hassell LLP · UK Supreme Court
““an unrepresented person is still under a duty not to mislead the court””
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
  • Barton v Wright Hassell LLP involved a litigant in person.
  • He used ChatGPT to draft a submission with fake cases.
  • The page reports no sanction, only a warning principle from the ruling.
  • UK Supreme Court.
  • The ruling quoted the duty of an unrepresented person not to mislead the court.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
The Upper Tribunal held a Hamid hearing over two immigration matters involving incorrect or fake case citations that did not match the cited cases.
UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid) [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“to put client letters and decision letters from the Home Office into an open source AI tool, such as ChatGPT, is to place this information on the internet in the public domain, and thus to breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege, and thus any regulated legal professional or firm that does so would, in addition to needing to bring this to the attention of their regulator, be advised to consult with the Information Commissioner’s Office.”
gowlingwlg.com ↗
The file →
  • UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid) [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) was the latest case discussed.
  • It involved two separate instances of suspected AI-invented or otherwise incorrect case citations.
  • The article says one case looked trivial and the other serious, but the tribunal may not have actually sanctioned anyone.
  • The court was the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).
  • Published 2026-02-24; the article notes the tribunal may have been too quick to cry AI.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT
Two judicial review applications contained false case citations generated by non-specialist AI tools, and the Tribunal warned that supervisors and signatories risk referral.
R (on the application of Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“Legal professionals are obliged to ensure that legal arguments which are presented to the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal are factually and legally accurate.”
ein.org.uk ↗
The file →
  • R (on the application of Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved two judicial review applications.
  • The grounds and supporting material contained false and non-existent case citations from AI drafting.
  • The Tribunal warned failures to check work are likely to result in referral to the SRA or another regulator.
  • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), UK.
  • Published 2026-02-20; the page says ChatGPT was one open-source AI tool discussed.
Warned ChatGPT
Three lawyers were warned after using ChatGPT to cite fake or incorrect legal cases in court, and two were ordered to take an AI training course.
Dutch lawyers warned for misusing ChatGPT in court · Three lawyers in the Netherlands
nltimes.nl ↗
The file →
  • Three lawyers in the Netherlands were warned
  • They misused ChatGPT to cite fake or incorrect legal cases in court
  • Sanction was a warning, and two lawyers had to take an AI training course
  • No court or judge name is given in the page text
  • The report says two were ordered to take an AI training course
Referred to the bar ChatGPT
A solicitor submitted a filing with a fake case name and false citations; the Upper Tribunal said it would have referred him to regulators but for his self-reporting.
Tahir Mehmood Mohammed · Tahir Mehmood Mohammed · Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber
“It matters not how such citation errors come about.”
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Tahir Mehmood Mohammed, a solicitor at TMF Immigration Lawyers, filed false citations.
  • He said he may have used Google AI mode and had also put client material into ChatGPT.
  • The tribunal would have referred him to the IAA and SRA but for self-reporting.
  • Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber; judge Fiona Lindsley.
  • November 2025 decision, published on 24 February 2026; the judge said errors matter regardless of whether they came from a trainee or ChatGPT.
Warned ChatGPT
A firm filed two briefs with five false ChatGPT-generated citations, and a federal judge was considering sanctions and potential fines.
another firm · federal judge
courtroomsciences.com ↗
The file →
  • Another firm faced possible sanctions for false citations.
  • Attorneys filed two briefs containing five ChatGPT-generated false citations.
  • The judge was considering sanctions and potential fines; no amount is given.
  • A federal judge in federal court.
  • The partner admitted using ChatGPT without verification and the firm apologized.
Fined ChatGPT
Steven A. Schwartz filed a brief with AI-fabricated cases and quotations, and the court sanctioned the filing.
In re Schwartz · Steven A. Schwartz · federal court
prinz-lawfirm.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Schwartz involved Steven A. Schwartz and AI-fabricated citations.
  • He submitted a brief with made-up cases and quotations.
  • The court sanctioned the filing with a monetary fine.
  • The page says courts in Wyoming, California, Texas, and Pennsylvania have sanctioned similar conduct.
  • It identifies ChatGPT as one of the AI tools that can hallucinate citations.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.