legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
857
Incidents tracked
266
Incidents in 2026
$2,397,608
In fines, where reported
212 of 857 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 452 of 857 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 147 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 249 Caught, not sanctioned 198 Warned 124 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 57 Filing dismissed 39 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
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.
Filing dismissed Centient AI 2026-04-15
A party using Centient AI filed fabricated and misrepresented case citations, and the brief was struck.
Stance Strong and Kinisha Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC d/b/a Popeyes Chicken · CA Illinois (1d) · IL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Stance Strong and Kinisha Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC d/b/a Popeyes Chicken
  • A party using Centient AI filed fabricated and misrepresented case citations.
  • The court struck the brief.
  • CA Illinois (1d), state, Illinois.
  • 2026-04-15; the AI tool is named on the page as Centient AI.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-04-13
Joanne Jones filed an appeal using undisclosed generative AI with incorrect citations and references; the Commission dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds and did not take the matter further.
Sentinel Community Services Pty Ltd v Clark Chesaites · Ms Joanne Jones · NSW Personal Injury Commission
“the deployment of undisclosed generative AI has not affected or perverted the result of this application and for this Ms Jones and Sentinel should be grateful”
carternewell.com ↗
The file →
  • Sentinel Community Services Pty Ltd v Clark Chesaites involved Ms Joanne Jones.
  • Jones used undisclosed generative AI in appeal materials and submissions.
  • The Commission did not impose a sanction and dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.
  • NSW Personal Injury Commission, New South Wales.
  • 13 April 2026; the materials contained incorrect citations and misdated Barden v Walgett Shire Council.
Caught, not sanctioned OpenCase 2026-04-09
Counsel filed a brief with nonexistent authorities and fake quotations, and the court discharged the show-cause order without imposing sanctions.
Gamez v. County of Fresno · Kevin Little · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California · CA
“the court accepted his explanation that he believed the AI tool had anti-hallucination protection”
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • In Gamez v. County of Fresno, an attorney narrowly avoided sanction.
  • An opposition brief contained nonexistent authority and fabricated quotations.
  • No sanction was imposed after a candid and detailed explanation.
  • The incident occurred in the U.S. District Court, E.D. Cal., with M.J. Grosjean.
  • On 2026-04-09, a paid generative AI tool was used, which the attorney believed had anti-hallucination protection.
Caught, not sanctioned $3K 2026-04-09
A brief produced using AI contained citations to nonexistent authorities and fictitious holdings, and the court addressed defendants' request to strike it.
Hulvat v. Gumina · Illinois Appellate Court, Third District · IL
“Robert’s reliance on fictitious authority is a pervasive, nascent, and very serious issue afflicting courts as the use and reliance on generative AI in preparing legal filings becomes more commonplace. … Robert’s self-represented status does not excuse his misuse of AI. … A monetary penalty in this context should impress upon all litigants the caution one must undertake when utilizing AI in brief preparation and the solemnity of filing documents before the court.”
ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net ↗
The file →
  • Hulvat v. Gumina involved a brief produced using AI.
  • The brief contained citations to nonexistent authorities and fictitious holdings.
  • The court considered defendants' request to strike the brief.
  • Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, Illinois.
  • The page does not name an attorney, firm, date, AI tool, or a sanction amount.
Fined 2026-04-09
J. Scott Key filed arguments containing citations to nonexistent cases and statutes, and the court sanctioned the misuse.
Daniels v. New York State Department of Health · J. Scott Key · New York state court · NY
govinfo.gov ↗
The file →
  • Daniels v. New York State Department of Health; J. Scott Key was sanctioned.
  • He filed arguments that contained cites to nonexistent cases and statutes.
  • The court imposed a monetary fine, but the amount is not stated in the page.
  • New York state court, New York.
  • April 9, 2026; the page says the cites were the result of 'AI Hallucinations.'
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-04-09
In a shareholder dispute, a lawyer cited non-existent case law and the Enterprise Chamber noted AI had “run amok”; the case ended in a settlement.
Lawyer blunders at Enterprise Chamber with fictional case law · Enterprise Chamber
“Judges spoke of AI that had “run amok”.”
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in a shareholder dispute was involved.
  • The lawyer cited non-existent case law and corrected filings produced new fictional ECLI numbers.
  • The case ended in a settlement and no sanction is stated.
  • Enterprise Chamber.
  • 9 April 2026; judges said AI had “run amok”.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-04-06
A pro se plaintiff filed motions citing fabricated quotations and a nonexistent proposition; the court struck one motion and denied another.
Hardy v. Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, et al. · E.D. Mich. · MI
“Courts and opposing counsel are burdened by the careless use of AI by pro se filers.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Hardy v. Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, et al. involved a pro se filer.
  • His motion to consolidate cited fabricated quotations from two real Sixth Circuit opinions.
  • The court struck the consolidation motion and denied the motion to compel.
  • E.D. Mich., federal court in Michigan.
  • April 6, 2026; the court blamed careless AI use by pro se filers.

Showing 491–500 of 857.

Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.