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 2026-02-17
A lawyer submitted two fabricated case laws and one misrepresented exhibit/submission, and one misrepresented legal norm.
14095863 Canada Inc. v Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. · Canadian IPO
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in 14095863 Canada Inc. v Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. was involved.
  • The AI misuse involved fabricated case law (2), misrepresented exhibits/submissions (1), and a misrepresented legal norm (1).
  • No specific sanction type is mentioned.
  • The court was the Canadian IPO in Canada.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-17; the AI tool was implied.
Upcoming sanction 2026-02-17
A lawyer submitted one fabricated case law and two misrepresented case laws, resulting in an upcoming sanction.
Greenberg v. First Bank, Inc. · California SC · CA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in Greenberg v. First Bank, Inc. was sanctioned.
  • The AI misuse involved fabricated case law (1) and misrepresented case law (2).
  • The sanction is an upcoming sanction.
  • The court was the California SC in USA.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-17; the AI tool was implied.
Outcome unclear 2026-02-16
A pro se litigant submitted one fabricated case law.
Deblois v. Procureur Général · Federal Court
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Deblois v. Procureur Général involved a pro se litigant.
  • The AI misuse concerned fabricated case law (1).
  • No specific sanction type is mentioned.
  • The court was the Federal Court in Canada.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-16; the AI tool was implied.
Warned 2026-02-13
Plaintiff's counsel filed briefs with one non-existent case and three false quotes from real cases; the court warned that further synthetic citations would warrant sanctions, but neither side requested sanctions.
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. All Season Power LLC, et al. · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“At the very least, the duties imposed by Rule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely.”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. All Season Power LLC; Plaintiff's counsel
  • Briefs included one non-existent case and three non-existent quotes from real cases
  • No sanctions requested; court warned further synthetic citations would warrant them
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
  • Decided Feb. 13; Magistrate Judge Stephanie Christensen said Rule 11 requires attorneys to confirm authorities
Warned 2026-02-13
Petitioners' counsel cited and relied on what the court said appeared to be a fabricated Tenth Circuit case, and the court warned counsel about it.
Petitioners' counsel · Petitioners' counsel
ca10.washburnlaw.edu ↗
The file →
  • Petitioners' counsel was warned by name in the document.
  • Counsel cited and relied on what appeared to be a fabricated Tenth Circuit case.
  • The court issued a warning, not a monetary sanction.
  • The document is dated 2026-02-13.
  • The page does not name the fake citation, the judge, or any AI tool.
Reprimanded 2026-02-13
A lawyer misrepresented five case laws, resulting in an obligation to share the decision with the firm.
Nydia Rosario v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company · E.D. Pennsylvania · PA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in Nydia Rosario v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company was sanctioned.
  • The AI misuse involved misrepresenting case law (5).
  • The sanction was an obligation to share the decision with the firm.
  • The court was the E.D. Pennsylvania, USA.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-13; the AI tool was implied.
Outcome unclear 2026-02-13
A lawyer submitted one fabricated case law, one fabricated exhibit/submission, and two misrepresented case laws, leading to an Order to Show Cause.
In re: Telexfree Securities Litigation · D. Massachusetts · MA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in In re: Telexfree Securities Litigation was involved.
  • The AI misuse included fabricated case law (1), fabricated exhibits/submissions (1), and misrepresented case law (2).
  • The sanction was an Order to Show Cause.
  • The court was the D. Massachusetts, USA.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-13; the AI tool was implied.
Warned 2026-02-13
A lawyer submitted one fabricated case law, leading to a warning.
Martha Liliana Picon-Diaz et al. v. Pamela J. Bondi · 10th Cir. CA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in Martha Liliana Picon-Diaz et al. v. Pamela J. Bondi was sanctioned.
  • The AI misuse involved fabricated case law (1).
  • The sanction was a warning.
  • The court was the 10th Cir. CA, USA.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-13; the AI tool was implied.

Showing 561–570 of 857.

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