legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
126
Incidents tracked
50
Incidents in 2026
$4,000
In fines, where reported
1 of 126 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 74 of 126 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 20 Copilot 5 AI-assisted legal software 2 ChatGPT-4o 1 Claude 1 CoCounsel 1 Legal Genius 1 Lexis+ AI 1 Strongsuit 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 126 incidents. Clear filters

Warned
Attorney Thomas Guyer filed a brief with AI-generated misquotes and incorrect citations, and Judge Thomas Cullen declined to sanction him and issued a warning instead.
Thomas Guyer · Thomas Guyer · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky · KY
“sufficient deterrent”
theintake0.substack.com ↗
The file →
  • Thomas Guyer was the attorney reviewed by the court
  • He filed a brief with AI-generated misquotes and incorrect citations
  • Judge Thomas Cullen declined sanctions and gave a warning
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
  • The article says Guyer was remorseful and had no history of misconduct
Warned
The Arizona Court of Appeals held that filing fake AI-generated cases can draw sanctions regardless of the filer's intent.
AZ Court of Appeals: Citing Fake AI-Generated Cases Can Get You Sanctioned, No Matter Your Intent · Arizona Court of Appeals · AZ
trxchange.com ↗
The file →
  • Arizona Court of Appeals matter about fake AI-generated cases
  • A filing cited fabricated AI cases and the court said intent did not matter
  • Sanction consequence described as sanctionable conduct; no amount stated
  • Arizona Court of Appeals in Arizona state court
  • July 2026 roundup; the article names no attorney, firm, or AI tool
Warned
A pro se opening brief used eight AI-generated fake cases, but the court declined sanctions and instead warned future misuse may be sanctioned.
Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC · Colorado Court of Appeals · CO
“technological convenience must never outweigh accuracy and integrity in the judicial process.”
cl.cobar.org ↗
The file →
  • Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC; the self-represented plaintiff was the filer.
  • The opening brief included eight AI-generated fake cases and he admitted the hallucinations.
  • No sanction was imposed; the court issued a warning only.
  • Colorado Court of Appeals, Colorado state court.
  • Published opinion noted his pro se status and immediate admission as mitigating factors.
Warned
The claimant's background assistant cited cases that appeared to be AI hallucinations, and the tribunal warned against relying on AI but took no further action.
A v British Transport Police Authority · Employment Tribunal
“The judge explained to the claimant the danger of relying upon AI to source case authorities and the steps which must be taken to check that they are genuine.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • A v British Transport Police Authority; claimant's background assistant cited false cases
  • Documents sent to the respondent contained cases that appeared to be AI hallucinations
  • The tribunal took no further action after the claimant apologized
  • Employment Tribunal
  • 9 March 2026; tribunal refused to reproduce the false citations in the judgment
Warned
Terrance Dixon filed a brief in a sanctions dispute that allegedly used fabricated AI-generated quotations, and Roc Nation asked the court to strike it.
Terrance Dixon v. Roc Nation LLC · Terrance Dixon · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
reuters.com ↗
The file →
  • Terrance Dixon's counsel in litigation involving Roc Nation LLC and Fat Joe
  • Plaintiff's counsel filed an opposition brief during a Rule 11 sanctions dispute containing fabricated quotes
  • Roc Nation urged the court to strike the brief due to the alleged AI-generated fabrications
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • Roc Nation alleged the opposition brief cited real judicial decisions but inserted fake quotations into them
Warned Copilot 2026-08-01
Paul Held cited fake cases in court papers, and the South Carolina bankruptcy court ordered him to complete continuing legal education, including AI ethics training.
In re Richburg · Paul Held · South Carolina bankruptcy court · SC
““for his blind reliance on a technological tool which he did not seem to fully understand.””
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Richburg; solo practitioner in South Carolina
  • He used Microsoft CoPilot to find cases and filed them without checking they existed
  • No monetary sanctions; the court required AI-ethics CLE
  • Bankruptcy court in South Carolina
  • Date not given; court called it a lesson learned for the bar in general
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.