legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
53
Incidents tracked
19
Incidents in 2026
$5,237
In fines, where reported
1 of 53 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 26 of 53 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 6 CoCounsel 1 Gemini 1 Google 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 126 Referred to the bar 98 Reprimanded 85 Outcome unclear 53 Filing dismissed 36 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1

Showing 41–50 of 53 incidents. Clear filters

Outcome unclear 2026-02-13
A lawyer submitted one fabricated case law, one fabricated exhibit/submission, and two misrepresented case laws, leading to an Order to Show Cause.
In re: Telexfree Securities Litigation · D. Massachusetts · MA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in In re: Telexfree Securities Litigation was involved.
  • The AI misuse included fabricated case law (1), fabricated exhibits/submissions (1), and misrepresented case law (2).
  • The sanction was an Order to Show Cause.
  • The court was the D. Massachusetts, USA.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-13; the AI tool was implied.
Outcome unclear 2026-02-13
A lawyer submitted one fabricated case law.
Lindsey Newell v. The Law Offices of Travis R. Walker, et al. · S.D. Florida · FL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in Lindsey Newell v. The Law Offices of Travis R. Walker, et al. was involved.
  • The AI misuse concerned fabricated case law (1).
  • No specific sanction type is mentioned.
  • The court was the S.D. Florida, USA.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-13; the AI tool was implied.
Outcome unclear Google AI 2025-12-18
Counsel relied on AI-generated Google summaries and linked databases for authority in an opposition brief.
Zhang v. NPR · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · DC
midwestfrontier.ai ↗
The file →
  • Zhang v. NPR involved counsel relying on AI-generated search summaries.
  • Attorney used Google search summaries linking to sources like VLex, unaware they were AI-generated.
  • The court issued an order to show cause regarding the submission.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Howell.
  • Decided December 18, 2025, illustrating AI search summary hallucination risks.
Outcome unclear 2025-11-28
A pro se litigant submitted filing with fake citations in the D. Colorado court.
Hanson v. Nest Home Lending, LLC et al. · D. Colorado · CO
aivortex.io ↗
The file →
  • A pro se litigant in Hanson v. Nest Home Lending, LLC et al.
  • The pro se litigant used fake citations.
  • The sanction type and amount are not recorded.
  • The incident occurred in the D. Colorado court, federal jurisdiction, Colorado.
  • The incident date is 2025-11-28, and the case involved fake citations.
Outcome unclear 2025-11-20
A lawyer submitted court filings featuring two fabricated case citations generated by implied AI tools.
Senat für Familiensachen, 17 WF 144/25 · KG Berlin
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Senat für Familiensachen, 17 WF 144/25 involved an unnamed attorney in Germany.
  • The attorney submitted filings containing 2 fabricated case citations.
  • No specific outcome or monetary penalty was detailed on the page.
  • Decided by the Kammergericht (KG) Berlin court in Germany.
  • Issued on November 20, 2025, with implied use of generative AI.
Outcome unclear ChatGPT 2025-11-19
A lawyer relied on ChatGPT, resulting in fabricated legal citations and misrepresented case law in court.
ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:4814 · Rechtbank Noord-Nederland
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:4814 involved an unnamed attorney in the Netherlands.
  • The attorney used ChatGPT, leading to 1 fake case, 1 fake reference, and 1 misrepresented case.
  • No specific sanction outcome was specified in the entry.
  • Decided in the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland in the Netherlands.
  • Issued November 19, 2025; ChatGPT identified as the source.
Outcome unclear 2025-11-18
A lawyer submitted briefs featuring fabricated case law, fake quotes, and misrepresented precedents.
Jorge Paredes Guevara v. A&P Restaurant Corp., et al. · S.D. New York · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Jorge Paredes Guevara v. A&P Restaurant Corp. involved an unnamed lawyer.
  • Filing contained 2 fabricated cases, 1 fake quote, 1 fake legal norm, and 1 misrepresented case.
  • No specific sanction outcome was specified in the summary table.
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  • Issued November 18, 2025; implied generative AI hallucination.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.