legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
86
Incidents tracked
30
Incidents in 2026
$86,945
In fines, where reported
5 of 86 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 49 of 86 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 13 CoCounsel 1 Eve 1 Gemini 1 Lexis+ AI 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 125 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 56 Filing dismissed 37 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1

Showing 41–50 of 86 incidents. Clear filters

Reprimanded 2026-07-27
Patent attorney was publicly reprimanded by the USPTO after submitting an AI-generated Joint Claim Construction Chart containing fictitious record citations.
Magpul Industries Corp. v. Mission First Tactical Group, Inc. · Brian E. Mitchell · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
crossvisionip.com ↗
The file →
  • Magpul Industries Corp. v. Mission First Tactical Group, Inc., involving attorney Brian E. Mitchell.
  • Mitchell used two AI tools to draft and review a Joint Claim Construction Chart that hallucinated patent specification and prosecution history citations.
  • The USPTO issued a public reprimand for professional conduct violations, while the district court imposed no sanctions.
  • The case was before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, followed by USPTO disciplinary proceedings.
  • The USPTO final order was issued July 27, 2026, marking a notable disciplinary action for AI-generated hallucinations in the patent record.
Reprimanded 2026-07-13
Attorney Erin Rich was ordered to take CLE courses after submitting briefings with embellished and false factual statements generated by AI.
James F. v. Commissioner of Social Security · Erin Rich · E.D. Michigan · MI
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • James F. v. Commissioner of Social Security involving attorney Erin Rich
  • Submitted briefs with false medical record facts after firm used AI for summaries
  • Non-monetary sanctions including mandatory CLE courses on ethics and AI
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
  • Decided July 13, 2026; court found Rule 11 violation was willful within firm command
Reprimanded 2026-06-22
A lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law, leading to an admonishment from the court.
Hoagland Family Limited Partnership v. Town of Clear Lake · CA Indiana · IN
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Hoagland Family Limited Partnership v. Town of Clear Lake, a lawyer was admonished.
  • The lawyer submitted filings that included fabricated case law, indicating AI-generated content.
  • The court issued an admonishment to the lawyer.
  • The incident occurred in a state court, the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
  • On June 22, 2026, an admonishment was issued after fabricated case law was discovered.
Reprimanded ChatGPT 2026-05-21
H. Gregory Harp filed a response with false quotations attributed to real cases and was sanctioned by Judge Harold D. Mooty III.
Jackie Miller v. Regions Bank · H. Gregory Harp · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · AL
““Lawyers make errors. Competent and ethical lawyers own them””
findlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Jackie Miller v. Regions Bank; attorney H. Gregory Harp
  • Harp filed a response with false quotations in support of summary judgment briefing
  • He was sanctioned and suspended for six months in the Northern District of Alabama
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Alabama
  • May 21, 2026; the court suspected generative AI and Harp later admitted using free ChatGPT for proofreading
Reprimanded 2026-05-16
A lawyer was publicly admonished by the court following implied generative AI misuse in filings.
Waggeh v. Utility Workers Union of America Local 1-2 et al. · S.D. New York · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Waggeh v. Utility Workers Union of America Local 1-2 et al. involving an unnamed lawyer.
  • The attorney submitted court filings with implied AI-generated hallucinations.
  • The court issued a public admonishment.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  • Decided May 16, 2026; AI tool was not identified.
Reprimanded 2026-05-13
A lawyer was publicly reprimanded and ordered to notify their client and self-refer to the bar for submitting fabricated and misrepresented case law.
Jane Doe 1, et al. v. Mount Saint Mary High School Corporation · W.D. Oklahoma · OK
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Jane Doe 1, et al. v. Mount Saint Mary High School Corporation involving an unnamed lawyer.
  • The attorney relied on an unidentified AI tool to submit fake citations and false quotes.
  • Public reprimand, notice to client, and mandatory self-referral to the state bar.
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
  • Decided May 13, 2026; involved an unidentified AI tool.
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.
Reprimanded 2026-04-16
The Nebraska Supreme Court temporarily suspended Omaha attorney Greg Lake after he used AI to draft a divorce appeal brief containing 57 defective citations and initially denied it.
Prososki v. Regan · Greg Lake · Nebraska Supreme Court · NE
““With respect, if you didn’t use artificial intelligence, how do we end up with a citation to cases that don’t exist? I mean, it’s frankly a little hard to believe that’s just a citation error,””

Cases that don't exist

  • Kennedy v. Kennedy, 27 - Neb. App. 510, 934 N.W.2d 57 (2019)
  • State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb. App. 500, 874 N.W.2d 211 (2016)
  • Schrag v. Spear, 312 Neb. 88, 978 N.W.2d 591 (2022)

+14 more

neonlabshub.com ↗
The file →
  • Omaha attorney Greg Lake was temporarily suspended by the Nebraska Supreme Court.
  • Lake submitted a divorce appeal brief where 57 of 63 citations were defective, including four fabricated cases.
  • The court issued a temporary/indefinite license suspension after Lake initially denied using AI.
  • The decision was handed down by the Nebraska Supreme Court.
  • The order occurred on 2026-04-16 and marks a rare indefinite license suspension tied to AI legal hallucinations.
Reprimanded $47K ChatGPT 2026-03-31
Attorney Joshua B. Watkins and Burrill Watkins LLC were publicly reprimanded for AI-fabricated legal statements and citations in Rivera v. Triad Properties Corp.
Joel A. Rivera v. Triad Properties Corporation, et al. · Joshua B. Watkins; Burrill Watkins LLC · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · AL
“Mr. Watkins's misconduct includes—and extends well beyond—the misuse of artificial intelligence to make both misleading and outright fabricated statements of law.”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • Rivera v. Triad Properties Corp.; Joshua B. Watkins and Burrill Watkins LLC were sanctioned.
  • Watkins used AI to make false statements of law and hallucinated cases in filings and hearings.
  • The court publicly reprimanded them and ordered $47,056.90 in fee payments total.
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama; Judge Anna Manasco.
  • The order says the conduct violated Rule 11 and warranted sanctions under the court's inherent authority.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.