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
Warned ChatGPT 2026-02-22
Three lawyers received a warning and two had to take a mandatory course after citing non-existent judgments generated by ChatGPT in court filings.
First disciplinary measures for lawyers · Judges in Arnhem, Rotterdam, and Groningen
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
  • Three lawyers were disciplined.
  • They cited non-existent judgments generated by ChatGPT.
  • The sanctions were a warning and mandatory course, with no amount stated.
  • Judges in Arnhem, Rotterdam, and Groningen.
  • 22 February 2026; the page says this was the first disciplinary measure.
Fined $2K 2026-02-18
Sixteen fabricated quotations and five misrepresentations were found in a reply brief, with the court finding it likely AI also wrote the show-cause response.
Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions & Bridgecrest Credit Company · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · TX
“Had Hersh accepted responsibility and been more forthcoming, it is likely that the court would have imposed lesser sanctions.”
nortonrosefulbright.com ↗
The file →
  • In Fletcher v. Experian, an attorney was sanctioned.
  • Sixteen fabricated quotations and five misrepresentations were found in a reply brief.
  • The sanction was $2,500 payable to the court.
  • The incident occurred in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Cir., with Chief Judge Elrod.
  • On 2026-02-18, the court found generative AI likely drafted the brief, and noted candour would have led to a lesser sanction.
Fined $2K 2026-02-17
The Fifth Circuit sanctioned Heather Hersh for filing an AI-generated brief with 21 fictional case citations and other errors.
In re Heather Hersh · Heather Hersh of FCRA attorneys · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
““Regrettably, despite numerous news stories, CLE presentations, scholarly articles, and judicial entreaties, AI-hallucinated case citations have increasingly become an even greater problem in our courts, and the problem shows no sign of abating,””
bestlawfirms.com ↗
The file →
  • Heather Hersh of FCRA attorneys was sanctioned by the Fifth Circuit.
  • She filed an AI-generated brief containing 21 fictional case citations and other errors.
  • The court ordered a $2,500 sanction.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; federal appellate court.
  • Feb. 17, 2026; the opinion said AI-hallucinated citations are getting worse and blamed inadequate review.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-02-17
The Chief Justice-led bench flagged lawyers filing AI-drafted petitions that cited non-existent judgments, including one styled Mercy vs Mankind.
Mercy vs Mankind · Supreme Court of India
“There was a case of Mercy vs Mankind which does not exist,”

Cases that don't exist

  • Mercy v. Mankind
m.economictimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Mercy vs Mankind was cited before the Supreme Court of India.
  • The court said a fictitious judgment had been cited and that it does not exist.
  • No sanction was reported in the article.
  • Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
  • Feb. 17, 2026; Justice Nagarathna recalled the fake case.
Warned 2026-02-17
Counsel filed a matter where all cited precedents were found to be non-existent, and the Supreme Court of India publicly flagged the filings.
Matter before Justice Dipankar Datta · Supreme Court of India
““All precedents cited never existed,” the Chief Justice said, underlining the gravity of the issue.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Mercy vs. Mankind
organiser.org ↗
The file →
  • A matter listed before Justice Dipankar Datta was singled out by the Chief Justice.
  • The court said all precedents cited by counsel were non-existent.
  • The court issued a warning, not a monetary sanction.
  • Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
  • Feb. 17, 2026; Chief Justice Surya Kant said some lawyers had started using AI for drafting.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-02-17
The page identifies a second UK AI hallucination case involving false authorities, but gives no named lawyer, firm, or sanction details in the excerpt.
Brightwaters Energy Limited v Eroton Exploration and Production Company LTD [2026] EWHC 296 · [D's representative] · High Court
“The reference to the 2014 case was the result of AI hallucination.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Brightwaters Energy Limited v Eroton Exploration and Production Company LTD [2026] EWHC 296
  • Second AI hallucination case mentioned on the page
  • The excerpt does not name the lawyer or firm involved
  • High Court, England and Wales
  • No sanction details are provided in the text shown

Showing 551–560 of 857.

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