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
Filing dismissed 2026-02-26
A self-represented appellant filed a brief with fabricated legal quotations and misattributed holdings; the court dismissed the appeal.
Samuel K. v. Focia · Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. · CA
“Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations – whether provided by generative AI or any other source – that the person responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Samuel K. v. Focia involved a self-represented appellant.
  • Her opening brief contained 12 legal quotations, 11 of which were fabrications.
  • The court dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
  • California Court of Appeal, state court in California.
  • February 26, 2026; the court said every citation must be personally read and verified.
Reprimanded 2026-02-24
The CBCA sanctioned a party for citing nonexistent authorities and quoting fabricated deposition testimony, issuing a formal admonishment.
Louis J. Blazy v. Department of State · Civilian Board of Contract Appeals
smithlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Louis J. Blazy v. Department of State was sanctioned by the CBCA.
  • The party cited nonexistent authorities and fabricated deposition testimony.
  • The sanction was a formal admonishment.
  • Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, federal forum.
  • Feb. 24, 2026; the Board warned continued misconduct could lead to dismissal.
Warned 2026-02-24
After incorrect ECLI numbers were withdrawn in a tenancy case, a cantonal judge at the Oost-Brabant court ordered a lawyer to explain by submission the suspected AI use.
Cantonal judge raises alarm over possible AI use · Oost-Brabant court
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in a tenancy case was ordered to explain suspected AI use.
  • Incorrect ECLI numbers were withdrawn from the filing.
  • The court ordered an explanation, which is a warning-like response.
  • Oost-Brabant court.
  • 24 February 2026; the judge went a step further than a reprimand.
Fined $1K ChatGPT 2026-02-24
An attorney filed an error-filled brief drafted with ChatGPT and Westlaw Precision AI that cited numerous hallucinated cases, and Judge Brandon Long imposed a $1,000 sanction.
Woodward Harbor LLC v. City of Mandeville, et al. · Eastern District of Louisiana · LA
mblb.com ↗
The file →
  • Woodward Harbor LLC v. City of Mandeville, et al.; one attorney was sanctioned.
  • He submitted a brief drafted with ChatGPT and Westlaw Precision AI containing hallucinated cases.
  • The court imposed a $1,000 sanction.
  • Eastern District of Louisiana; federal; Louisiana.
  • 2026-02-24; the brief included at least 11 citations that were made up, misquoted, or misused.
Reprimanded 2026-02-24
Gordon Rees received a reprimand after filing documents containing AI-hallucinated or fictitious legal citations.
Juan Villalovos-Gutierrez, et al. v. Gerard Van de Pol, et al. · Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani · U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney · CA
“Counsel shall not file or otherwise present to the court any documents which contain AI-hallucinated citations or fictitious or non-existent legal citations.”
completeaitraining.com ↗
The file →
  • Gordon Rees was reprimanded in Villalovos-Gutierrez v. Pol.
  • The court said the firm filed documents with AI-hallucinated or fictitious citations.
  • The sanction was a reprimand with no amount stated.
  • The order came from U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney.
  • Date was December 3, 2025; the page did not name an AI tool.

Showing 541–550 of 857.

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