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
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-02-13
A pro se litigant submitted three fabricated case laws, resulting in the arguments being deemed waived.
Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus · CA Kansas · KS
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus involved a pro se litigant.
  • The AI misuse concerned fabricated case law (3).
  • The sanction was that arguments were deemed waived.
  • The court was CA Kansas in USA.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-13; the AI tool was implied.
Fined $1 2026-02-13
A lawyer submitted ten fabricated case laws and one misrepresented case law, and two misrepresented legal norms, resulting in a temeridad declaration, a monetary fine, and a bar referral.
AC739-2026 · CSJ
“Trasladar un texto generado por IA sin contraste alguno constituye ceguera voluntaria (dolo).”
haqq.ai ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in AC739-2026 was sanctioned.
  • The AI misuse involved fabricated case law (10), misrepresented case law (1), and misrepresented legal norms (2).
  • The sanction was a temeridad declaration, a monetary fine of $1 USD, and a bar referral.
  • The court was the CSJ in Colombia.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-13; the AI tool was unidentified.
Outcome unclear 2026-02-13
A lawyer submitted one fabricated case law.
Lindsey Newell v. The Law Offices of Travis R. Walker, et al. · S.D. Florida · FL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in Lindsey Newell v. The Law Offices of Travis R. Walker, et al. was involved.
  • The AI misuse concerned fabricated case law (1).
  • No specific sanction type is mentioned.
  • The court was the S.D. Florida, USA.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-13; the AI tool was implied.
Warned 2026-02-12
Judge J.P. Boulee sanctioned Atlanta lawyer E. Earle Burke after he filed citations and quotations that did not exist.
E. Earle Burke · E. Earle Burke · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · GA
“Salinas said the attorney presented three quotations that did not exist.”
ajc.com ↗
The file →
  • E. Earle Burke was sanctioned in federal court in Georgia.
  • He filed three nonexistent quotations and cited a non-existent case.
  • He must attend a six-hour training course.
  • U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee imposed the order in the Northern District of Georgia.
  • The article says Magistrate Judge Catherine Salinas questioned whether he used artificial intelligence.
Fined $1 2026-02-12
A lawyer submitted eleven fabricated case laws and four misrepresented case laws; the Magistrate recommended a monetary sanction and a bar referral.
Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al. · S.D. Indiana · IN
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al. was sanctioned.
  • The AI misuse involved fabricated case law (11) and misrepresented case law (4).
  • The sanction was a recommended monetary fine of $1 USD and a bar referral.
  • The court was the S.D. Indiana, USA.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-12; the AI tool was implied.
Fined 2026-02-12
A lawyer submitted one fabricated case law, resulting in a monetary sanction of 2500 ILS.
Ploni v. Log-On Software Ltd. et al. · Regional Labor Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in Ploni v. Log-On Software Ltd. et al. was sanctioned.
  • The AI misuse involved fabricated case law (1).
  • The sanction was a monetary fine of 2500 ILS.
  • The court was the Regional Labor Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Israel.
  • The incident occurred on 2026-02-12; the AI tool was implied.
Reprimanded ChatGPT 2026-02-10
The court publicly censured the attorney for filing an unreviewed, ChatGPT-drafted federal brief containing fabricated case citations.
Matter of Zareh · SC New York · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Matter of Zareh involving respondent attorney
  • Filed unreviewed brief drafted by ChatGPT with fake case citations and misstatements
  • Publicly censured via reciprocal discipline
  • New York Supreme Court
  • Disciplined February 10, 2026; follows prior admonishment in federal court

Showing 571–580 of 857.

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