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
Fined Lexis+ AI 2026-04-06
The State Bar Court approved discipline after Khalifeh filed a federal trademark brief with nonexistent and irrelevant AI-assisted citations and failed to disclose generative AI use.
Omid Emile Khalifeh · Omid Emile Khalifeh · State Bar Court · CA
“Courts and clients must be able to trust that the filings attorneys submit are accurate, supported, and compliant with professional standards,”
latimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Omid Emile Khalifeh was accused by the State Bar of California.
  • He filed an April 2025 federal trademark brief with a nonexistent citation and two irrelevant AI-assisted citations.
  • The State Bar Court approved discipline, including probation and a 30-day suspension.
  • State Bar Court, California.
  • April 6, 2026; he said the brief was informed by Lexis+ AI.
Referred to the bar CoCounsel 2026-04-03
Counsel used a Gen AI platform to draft two briefs with fabricated quotations and misstatements, and the court removed him, denied CJA compensation, and referred him out.
United States v. Farris · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
“inexcusable transgressions”
holonlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • United States v. Farris; court-appointed counsel was sanctioned
  • Two briefs drafted with Gen AI contained fabricated quotations and mischaracterized holdings
  • Removal from case, denial of all CJA compensation, and referral
  • Sixth Circuit
  • 2026; the court credited candor and a clean 40-year record but still found inexcusable transgressions
Fined CoCounsel 2026-04-03
The Sixth Circuit sanctioned an attorney after briefs generated by Westlaw’s CoCounsel contained fabricated quotations and misrepresented two real cases.
United States v. Farris · an attorney using Westlaw’s CoCounsel · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · KY
“The court held that citing "real legal authorities", as opposed to hallucinations featuring fictitious cases, did not absolve him.”

Cases that don't exist

  • United States v. Washington
  • United States v. Anthony
align.lawyer ↗
The file →
  • United States v. Farris involved an attorney using Westlaw’s CoCounsel.
  • Briefs generated by the AI contained fabricated quotations and misrepresented the holdings of two real cases.
  • The Sixth Circuit sanctioned the attorney.
  • The court was the Sixth Circuit, federal appellate court.
  • The order was dated Apr. 3, 2026, and involved legal-specific AI.
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.
Referred to the bar $56K CoCounsel 2026-03-31
A lawyer filed documents with fabricated case law, misrepresented case law, and outdated advice, resulting in a reprimand, order to file order in subsequent cases, bar referral, and adverse costs.
Heimkes v. Fairhope Motorcoach Resort Condominium Owners Association, Inc. · S.D. Alabama · AL
aininja.academy ↗
The file →
  • Heimkes v. Fairhope Motorcoach Resort Condominium Owners Association, Inc. involved a lawyer using Cocounsel (Westlaw).
  • The lawyer submitted fabricated case law, misrepresented case law, and outdated advice.
  • The lawyer received a reprimand, an order to file the order in subsequent cases, a bar referral, and $55,597 in adverse costs.
  • The incident occurred in the S.D. Alabama, a federal court.
  • The sanction was issued on March 31, 2026, due to AI-generated legal errors.
Reprimanded 2026-03-30
Counsel filed an appellate brief with two non-existent cases and a false quotation; the Seventh Circuit admonished him but declined further sanctions.
Dec v. Mullin · Seventh Circuit
“Whatever AI’s future in litigation, our concern lies with trained lawyers failing to check the accuracy of legal citations and quotations in their filings.”
natlawreview.com ↗
The file →
  • Dec v. Mullin involved petitioner’s counsel.
  • He cited two non-existent cases and a false quotation in a brief.
  • The Seventh Circuit admonished him but imposed no further sanctions.
  • Seventh Circuit, federal appellate court.
  • March 30, 2026; the court said counsel failed to verify citations.
Outcome unclear 2026-03-30
Civil Rights Corps filed a brief supporting sanctions against a District Attorney’s Office in the case of Kjoller v. Superior Court of Nevada County, urging an inquiry into filings riddled with fabricated legal authorities and fictitious quotations.
Kjoller v. Superior Court of Nevada County · California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District · CA
hoodline.com ↗
The file →
  • Kjoller v. Superior Court involved the Nevada County District Attorney's Office.
  • Prosecutors submitted a brief with three fabricated and three irrelevant case citations generated by AI.
  • The California Supreme Court ordered an investigation and order to show cause regarding sanctions.
  • The matter is pending before a court-appointed referee judge in California state court.
  • The January 2026 Supreme Court order review marks the first known case of US prosecutors submitting AI-hallucinated citations in a criminal proceeding.
Reprimanded 2026-03-27
A Pennsylvania attorney filed a brief using AI-generated summaries of eight DEA adjudications, including one non-existent decision; the Third Circuit reprimanded him and imposed no monetary sanction.
McCarthy, P.A. v. United States DEA · Stephen McCarthy, P.A · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
“Attorney has harmed his credibility with this court”
oslaw.com ↗
The file →
  • McCarthy v. DEA involved a Pennsylvania attorney and the Third Circuit.
  • He relied on AI-generated summaries of eight DEA adjudications, and one did not exist.
  • The court issued only a reprimand and no monetary sanctions.
  • The court was the Third Circuit; the article gives no location beyond that.
  • The article says the court cited his belated corrections and sincere contrition, and did not clearly articulate AI expectations.
Caught, not sanctioned Eve 2026-03-27
Ross LeBlanc filed briefs citing a real decision but quoting passages that did not exist, and the mistake was flagged with sanctions being sought.
Ross LeBlanc · Ross LeBlanc · 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge · LA
businessinsider.com ↗
The file →
  • Ross LeBlanc, a Dudley DeBosier partner, was linked to the filings.
  • He filed briefs with quotes that did not exist in a real court decision.
  • The court had not yet imposed sanctions; opposing counsel sought them.
  • 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
  • March 27, 2026 letter; LeBlanc said he started using Eve to draft pleadings.
Fined $1K 2026-03-27
A lawyer filed papers with fabricated citations; the court imposed a monetary sanction and adverse costs and recommended CLE.
Amtrust North America o/b/o Justin McGinness v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company · D.N.J. · NJ
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Amtrust North America o/b/o Justin McGinness v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company involved a lawyer.
  • The filing contained fabricated citations.
  • The court imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction plus adverse costs and recommended CLE.
  • The case was in SC New Jersey.
  • Date: 2026-03-27; AI use was listed as implied.

Showing 501–510 of 857.

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