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 2026-02-09
Counsel filed a Tax Court brief with fabricated case citations that the court said appeared to be hallucinations generated by a large language model AI.
Clinco v. Comm’r · U.S. Tax Court
“Submitting a brief with fictitious caselaw is a recipe for sanctions and a clear violation of Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
carakerlawfirm.com ↗
The file →
  • Clinco v. Comm’r involved counsel for the taxpayer in Tax Court.
  • The brief relied on mostly fabricated cases, and 3 of 4 cited cases did not exist.
  • The court did not impose a sanction in this described outcome.
  • U.S. Tax Court, federal jurisdiction.
  • Filed February 9, 2026; the article says the citations appeared to be hallucinations generated by a large language model AI.
Warned ChatGPT-4o 2026-02-09
The court struck a Stanford professor's expert declaration in its entirety for fabricated citations, an order affirmed by the Eighth Circuit.
Kohls v. Ellison · Jeff Hancock · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · MN
“Rule 11 imposes a “personal, nondelegable responsibility” to ensure the accuracy of everything filed.”
aiforlawyersacademy.com ↗
The file →
  • Kohls v. Ellison
  • A Stanford professor submitted an expert declaration containing fabricated citations
  • The expert declaration was struck in its entirety
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
  • Affirmed February 9, 2026; established that counsel has a personal duty to validate expert filings
Warned 2026-02-09
A plaintiff's brief contained citations to non-existent cases, and Judge Shah cautioned the plaintiff against continued AI use.
Bettis v. Gaston et al · Northern District of Illinois · IL
tresslerllp.com ↗
The file →
  • Bettis v. Gaston et al was a Northern District of Illinois case.
  • The court found several citations to non-existent cases in the brief.
  • Judge Shah cautioned the plaintiff against continued use of AI.
  • Federal court in Illinois; no monetary sanction was imposed.
  • Feb. 9, 2026; the article says the plaintiff was warned after AI-related fake citations.
Warned 2026-02-09
Mr. Wagner filed a Tax Court brief with three hallucinated AI-generated cases and was let off with a warning.
Peter L. Clinco, Deceased v. Commissioner · Mr. Wagner · United States Tax Court
“A bit of embarrassment for failure to citecheck, failure to ‘fess up, and (if it occurred) use of AI to write a section of the brief is enough for now.”
taishofflaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Peter L. Clinco, Deceased, C. M. Barone-Clinco, Successor in Interest, and C. M. Barone-Clinco; Mr. Wagner was the attorney.
  • He cited four cases; three were hallucinations generated by a large language model AI.
  • Judge Holmes issued only a warning, with no monetary sanction.
  • United States Tax Court; the article says Judge Mark V. Holmes handled it.
  • Filed 2026-02-09; the post says Wagner kept citing the inventions even after IRS counsel objected.
Filing dismissed ChatGPT 2026-02-06
Kenosha County Judge David Hughes sanctioned DA Xavier Solis and dismissed two criminal cases after Solis filed a response containing hallucinated AI case citations.
State v. Solis · Xavier Solis · Kenosha County Circuit Court · WI
“Hughes struck Solis’ written response after finding it used AI without disclosure and relied on “hallucinated,” false legal citations.”
yahoo.com ↗
The file →
  • Kenosha County DA Xavier Solis was sanctioned by Judge David Hughes.
  • Solis filed a brief riddled with hallucinated and bogus AI-generated case citations.
  • The court sanctioned Solis and dismissed two open criminal cases.
  • The proceedings occurred in Kenosha County Circuit Court, Wisconsin.
  • The sanction occurred in February after defense attorneys flagged fake citations in a motion reply.
Filing dismissed ChatGPT 2026-02-05
Defense counsel filed a motion-to-dismiss brief with false citations, then repeated the errors after a sanctions order to show cause; the court struck the filings and entered default judgment.
Flycatcher Corp. Ltd. v. Affable Ave. LLC · Steven A. Feldman · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“Only 14 out of 60 cases were hallucinations.”

Cases that don't exist

  • 2022 WL 4637582
  • 2024 LEXIS 2847243
nysba.org ↗
The file →
  • Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue involving attorney Steven A. Feldman
  • Repeatedly submitted AI-generated fake citations and false quotes in bad faith
  • Briefs struck and default judgment entered against client
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • Decided February 5, 2026; tools used included NotebookLM, vLex, and Paxton AI
Fined $12K ChatGPT 2026-02-02
Lawyers filed briefs with ChatGPT-hallucinated citations and quotations, and Judge Julie A. Robinson publicly admonished and sanctioned them.
Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc. · Sandeep Seth; Kenneth Kula; Christopher Joe; Michael Doell; David Cooper · D. Kan. · KS
“the Rule 11 duty is “nondelegable.””
yahoo.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorneys Sandeep Seth, Kenneth P. Kula, Christopher M. Joe, and David R. Cooper sanctioned
  • Submitted nonexistent citations, fabricated quotations, and misrepresented decisions using ChatGPT
  • Sandeep Seth fined $5,000; Kula and Joe fined $3,000 each; Cooper fined $1,000 (total $12,000)
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas under Judge Julie A. Robinson
  • Order issued February 2, 2026; Seth had his permission to appear revoked
Referred to the bar 2026-02-02
Lawyer submitted fabricated case law, resulting in a monetary sanction of 620,000 ARS, bar referral, and an adverse costs order.
Ortiz Fatima Cecilia v. Booking.com y otros · JCC de Tucumán
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Ortiz Fatima Cecilia v. Booking.com y otros involved an attorney submitting fake case law.
  • The attorney submitted filings containing fabricated case law.
  • The court imposed a 620,000 ARS fine, a bar referral, and an adverse costs order.
  • The case was decided in JCC de Tucumán, Argentina.
  • Decided on February 2, 2026.
Warned 2026-02-01
In Huynh v. Redis Labs, Gordon Rees allegedly filed another brief with fabricated authority despite earlier sanctions and a warning about possible terminating sanctions.
Huynh v. Redis Labs · Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani · U.S. District Court (California) · CA
compliancehub.wiki ↗
The file →
  • Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani was again accused of AI hallucinations.
  • A brief in Huynh v. Redis Labs allegedly contained more fabricated authority.
  • The page says the firm had already received monetary sanctions and a warning.
  • U.S. District Court in California; federal.
  • February 2026; the article says this was a repeat-offender incident.
Fined $1K ChatGPT 2026-02-01
A New Orleans court fined John Walker $1,000 after his LSU Health Foundation brief contained at least 11 fabricated or mischaracterized citations.
John Walker · John Walker · New Orleans · LA
““To this day it blows my mind it has that capability,””
developmentcorporate.com ↗
The file →
  • John Walker was sanctioned over an LSU Health Foundation brief.
  • The brief contained at least 11 fabricated or mischaracterized citations.
  • The court imposed a $1,000 fine.
  • New Orleans, Louisiana state court.
  • February 2026; Walker used both ChatGPT and Westlaw Precision AI.

Showing 581–590 of 857.

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