legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
98
Incidents tracked
30
Incidents in 2026
$386,941
In fines, where reported
14 of 98 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 57 of 98 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 17 Claude 2 CoCounsel 2 LEAP 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 ChatGPT-4 1 Copilot 1 GPT-3.5 1 Gemini 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

Showing 41–50 of 98 incidents. Clear filters

Referred to the bar 2026-07-10
A lawyer filed fabricated and false-quote citations, and the court partly struck the brief, imposed adverse costs, and referred the matter to the bar.
Marion Parnell, Jr. v. Florida Department of Corrections · 11th Cir. CA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Marion Parnell, Jr. v. Florida Department of Corrections; lawyer not named on the page.
  • The filing used fabricated case law and false quotes.
  • The court partly struck the brief, imposed adverse costs, and made a bar referral.
  • 11th Cir. CA; federal appellate court.
  • 2026-07-10; the page gives no AI tool name.
Referred to the bar 2026-07-07
An attorney was fined €1,800 and referred to the bar for submitting six fabricated citations, with the fine tied to the cost of a verified legal AI tool.
Recurso de Suplicación 0005472/2025 · T.S.X. Galicia
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Recurso de Suplicación 0005472/2025
  • Lawyer cited six fabricated legal precedents in appeal
  • Bar referral and €1,800 fine calculated based on annual cost of verified legal AI
  • Tribunal Superior de Xustiza de Galicia (Spain)
  • Decided July 7, 2026; court noted verified AI tools like Harvey or GenIA-L prevent errors
Referred to the bar 2026-06-22
A lawyer filed fabricated case law, and the court referred the matter to the bar.
FHMC, LLC et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. · Jesse Schaefer · CA Arizona (1d) · AZ
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • FHMC, LLC et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc.; lawyer not named on the page.
  • The filing contained fabricated case law.
  • The court issued a bar referral.
  • CA Arizona (1d); state appellate court in Arizona.
  • 2026-06-22; the page gives no AI tool name.
Referred to the bar $80K 2026-06-09
Hallucinated cases and quotations, with remnants of AI drafting prompts, led to $80,056 in adverse costs and a referral to bar authorities.
LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone · S.D.N.Y. · NY
aininja.academy ↗
The file →
  • LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone involved hallucinated cases and quotations.
  • Filed documents contained hallucinated cases and quotations, along with visible remnants of AI drafting prompts.
  • The court imposed $80,056 in adverse costs and a referral to bar authorities.
  • The incident occurred in the Southern District of New York.
  • The decision date was June 9, 2026, with a focus on AI drafting issues.
Referred to the bar $1 2026-06-02
Reaves Law Firm was sanctioned under Rule 11 after filing motions containing AI-generated hallucinated cases and quotes and failing to produce evidence of a verification process.
Reaves Law Firm, PLLC v. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, et al. · Reaves Law Firm · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee · TN
corporatecomplianceinsights.com ↗
The file →
  • Reaves Law Firm v. Baker Donelson involves sanctions against Reaves Law Firm.
  • The firm filed multiple pleadings containing arguments unsupported by cited cases and fake direct quotes.
  • The federal court sanctioned Reaves Law Firm under Rule 11 after it failed to show proof of a verification process.
  • The order was issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
  • Reaves attempted to blame a departed general counsel, but the court held the firm accountable.
Referred to the bar 2026-05-28
A lawyer submitted filings with fabricated case law and false quotes, resulting in a bar referral.
EML (a pseudonym) v AFT (a pseudonym) [2026] VCC 734 · County Court of Victoria
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • EML v AFT involved a lawyer using AI-generated content.
  • The filing contained fabricated case law and false quotes.
  • The court issued a Bar Referral against the lawyer.
  • The decision was rendered by the County Court of Victoria, Australia.
  • The order was issued on 28 May 2026.
Referred to the bar 2026-05-27
The court said O'Hara's petition appeared AI-generated, cited non-existent caselaw, and referred the matter to The Florida Bar for sanctions.
Eclectic Synergy, LLC v. Mona Seredin the Estate of Alexander Seredin · John Joseph O'Hara of The O'Hara Law Group, P.A · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · FL
“The submission of fictitious or fabricated case law—whether the product of carelessness, misunderstanding, or reliance on generative artificial-intelligence tools—is sanctionable.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. Masek, 982 So. 2d 1231
  • Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607
caselaw.findlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Eclectic Synergy, LLC v. Mona Seredin the Estate of Alexander Seredin; John Joseph O'Hara of The O'Hara Law Group, P.A.
  • O'Hara filed a certiorari petition with non-existent or misleading citations.
  • The court referred the matter to The Florida Bar; no monetary amount was imposed in this order.
  • District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, in Florida.
  • Decided May 27, 2026; the court said the petition appeared AI-generated and cited non-existent caselaw.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.