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
Outcome unclear 2026-03-11
The defendants said the claimant deployed AI-generated hallucinatory references to non-existent cases, causing unnecessary cross-checking.
Setu Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Anor · not stated
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Setu Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Anor involved the claimant.
  • The page says AI-generated references to non-existent cases were deployed.
  • No sanction is stated on the page.
  • Court not stated on the page.
  • 11 Mar 2026; the references caused unnecessary effort in cross-checking.
Fined $2K ChatGPT 2026-03-10
A pro se plaintiff filed a brief with fabricated case citations and AI-generated content; the court imposed Rule 11 sanctions.
Allen v. Cass Casper · N.D. Ill. · IL
“Pro se status does not shelter plaintiffs from sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. … Filing a document that contains citations to nonexistent cases, quotes language that comes from no real case, or that contains arguments wholly unsupported by the record violates Rule 11. Allen did just that. This demonstrates that Allen failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the supporting law or facts.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Allen v. Cass Casper involved a pro se plaintiff sanctioned over AI-made citations.
  • Her opposition brief contained at least two entirely fabricated case citations and AI-generated sections.
  • The court imposed a $1,500 Rule 11 monetary sanction.
  • N.D. Ill., federal court in Illinois.
  • March 10, 2026; the court said she relied too heavily on AI without reasonable inquiry.
Referred to the bar 2026-03-10
Khalid Parvaiz filed a factum with fake quotations attributed to real cases, and Justice Frederick Myers said he would refer the matter to the Law Society of Ontario.
Kapahi Real Estate Inc. v. Elite Real Estate Club of Toronto Inc. · Ontario Superior Court of Justice · ON
““The alleged quotations set out in the reply factum are not efforts to quote an actual part of the case that contain a transposition error or two,” Myers wrote. “Rather, they are completely made up. Nothing like them appears in the precedents from which they are said to be quoted.””
lawtimesnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Kapahi Real Estate Inc. v. Elite Real Estate Club of Toronto Inc.; Khalid Parvaiz
  • Parvaiz filed a factum with real case citations but wholly made up quotations
  • Justice Myers said he would refer the matter to the Law Society of Ontario
  • Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario
  • March 10, 2026; Myers said the quotations were completely made up
Fined $5K 2026-03-09
Roxanne Chung Bonar cited fabricated cases in a dissolution matter and the Court of Appeal affirmed a $5,000 sanctions order against her.
Joan Pablo Torres Campos vs. Leslie Ann Munoz · Roxanne Chung Bonar · California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One · CA
“"We publish this opinion to emphasize that courts and attorneys alike have a responsibility to protect the legal system against distortion by fabricated law, particularly in this new era of hallucinated citations generated by artificial intelligence (AI) tools."”

Cases that don't exist

  • Marriage of Twigg (1984) 34 Cal.3d 926
  • Marriage of Teegarden (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1572
sfchronicle.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Domestic Partnership of Torres Campos and Munoz involved respondent’s counsel.
  • The proposed order and hearing papers contained fictitious case authorities obtained from a Reddit article and apparently from AI tools.
  • The Court of Appeal imposed $5,000 in sanctions and referred the matter to the State Bar.
  • California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One (state, CA).
  • 2026-03-05; the court said reliance on fake cases is fundamentally incompatible with informed discretion.
Warned 2026-03-09
The court issued an order to show cause after finding two fabricated federal opinion quotations in plaintiffs' memorandum.
M7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados v. U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coalition, et al. · S.D. New York · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • M7 Indústria v. U.S. Structural Plywood involving plaintiffs' counsel
  • Memorandum contained two AI-generated non-existent federal case quotations
  • Order to show cause issued by the court
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • Issued March 9, 2026; counsel ordered to certify review of all cited cases
Fined $10K 2026-03-06
Two lawyers cited two fictitious AI-generated cases in closing submissions and were ordered to pay S$5,000 each in personal costs.
Tan Hai Peng Micheal v Tan Cheong Joo and another and other matters · Mr Goh Peck San · General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
“It is again re-emphasised in this judgment.”
elitigation.sg ↗
The file →
  • Tan Thuan Teck estate suit; Mr Goh Peck San and Mr Amarjit Singh Sidhu
  • Closing submissions cited two fictitious AI-generated cases
  • Ordered to pay S$5,000 each in personal costs (S$10,000 total)
  • Singapore High Court, Singapore
  • 2026-03-06; Justice S Mohan said counsel must verify all authorities
Reprimanded 2026-03-05
Unregistered barrister submitted a skeleton argument with four AI-hallucinated case citations; the court ordered the judgment published naming her with no fine.
Re A, B, C, D (Extension of assessment; Use of AI: hallucinations) · Layla Parsons · Bournemouth Family Court
“Having heard from her, and read her submissions, I absolve her of any intention to mislead the court”
theinternetninja.com ↗
The file →
  • Re A, B, C, D involved unregistered barrister Layla Parsons
  • Submitted four erroneous or fabricated case authorities generated by an unnamed AI tool
  • Sanctioned by public naming in the published judgment with no fine or costs order
  • Decided in Bournemouth Family Court, England & Wales
  • Order issued 2026-03-05 by Recorder Howard, following Parsons's self-report to the BSB
Warned ChatGPT 2026-03-01
Several authorities and citations in judicial review grounds could not be located; the Tribunal found the errors consistent with AI-hallucination risk and accepted a supervising solicitor's explanation.
R(Munir) and SOSHD · Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber
““Freely available generative artificial intelligence tools, trained on a large language model such as ChatGPT are not capable of conducting reliable legal research.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • R(Munir) and SOSHD concerned false authorities and citations in judicial review grounds.
  • The Tribunal found the pattern of errors consistent with AI-hallucination risk.
  • The supervising solicitor accepted that false citations generated by AI may have been used.
  • Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, UK.
  • 2026-03-01; the Tribunal stressed supervision and accurate checking of documents.
Warned 2026-03-01
Two Quinn Patton partners filed briefs with fake AI-generated case-law quotes, and Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher ordered them to explain the hallucinations.
Quinn Patton filings in U.S. District Court for Maryland · Donald Quinn and Katherine Patton / Quinn Patton · U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland · MD
“attorneys are not entitled to a second bite at the apple”
thedailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
  • Quinn Patton / Donald Quinn and Katherine Patton were scrutinized for five briefs with bogus AI-generated quotes.
  • The filings contained fake case-law quotes and hallucinations.
  • Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher ordered explanations for the hallucinations.
  • U.S. District Court for Maryland in Baltimore, Maryland.
  • March 2026; Gallagher said her concerns extended to the entire firm.
Warned 2026-02-27
The trial court relied on non-existent, AI-generated precedents in ruling on objections to an Advocate Commissioner’s report, and the Supreme Court issued notice to examine the consequences.
Gummadi Usha Rani and another v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao and another · Trial Court Judge · Supreme Court of India · AP
“"We take cognisance of the trial court deploying AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments and seek to examine its consequences and accountability as it has a direct bearing on the integrity of the adjudicatory process,"”

Cases that don't exist

  • Subramani v. M. Natarajan, (2013) 14 SCC 95
  • Chidambaram Pillai v. SAL Ramasamy, (1071) 2 SCC 68
  • Lakshmi Devi v. K. Prabha, (2006) 5 SCC 551

+1 more

verdictum.in ↗
The file →
  • Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao involved trial-court reliance on fake precedents.
  • The defendants said the cited authorities were non-existent and fabricated.
  • The Supreme Court issued notice and directed the trial court not to proceed on the basis of the report.
  • Supreme Court of India; notice issued in New Delhi.
  • Decided 2026-02-27; the page says the trial court used AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments.

Showing 531–540 of 857.

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