legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

Every incident where a lawyer got caught filing AI-fabricated citations. The Hall of Shame.

Embed this
851
Incidents tracked
262
Incidents in 2026
$2,417,608
In fines, where reported
214 of 851 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 446 of 851 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 151 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 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 251 Caught, not sanctioned 199 Warned 126 Referred to the bar 98 Reprimanded 85 Outcome unclear 53 Filing dismissed 36 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
Outcome unclear
The court issued a show cause order to a lawyer after detecting three fabricated case law citations in a filing.
Braun v. Day · N.D. Illinois · IL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Braun v. Day involved a lawyer submitting AI-generated content.
  • The lawyer submitted three fabricated case law citations.
  • The judge issued an Order to Show Cause.
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
  • Issued on April 30, 2026, in connection with plaintiff's motion to compel.
Outcome unclear
A lawyer submitted a filing containing fabricated case law in federal court.
Jane Doe v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners · D. Maryland · MD
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Jane Doe v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners involved a lawyer.
  • The lawyer submitted fabricated case law in a court document.
  • No specific sanction outcome was specified in the entry.
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
  • The ruling date was April 29, 2026.
Outcome unclear
A lawyer who submitted fabricated case law and false quotes was ordered to attend an ethics seminar and produce proof of attendance.
Loyer v. Wayne County Michigan et al. · E.D. Michigan · MI
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Loyer v. Wayne County Michigan et al. involved a lawyer submitting AI hallucinations.
  • The submission contained fabricated case law, false quotes, and misrepresented law.
  • The court ordered the attorney to attend an ethics seminar and show proof of attendance.
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
  • Issued on April 28, 2026, involving an unidentified AI tool.
Reprimanded
The court admonished a lawyer for submitting false case law quotes in court filings.
Tunstall v. Alabama Department of Corrections · N.D. Alabama · AL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Tunstall v. Alabama Department of Corrections involved a lawyer using AI.
  • The lawyer submitted false quotes from case law in filings.
  • The court issued an admonishment against the attorney.
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
  • The decision was issued on April 28, 2026.
Warned
A Texas court issued a warning to counsel whose mandamus petition contained attributions and quotations that appeared to be AI-fabricated hallucinations.
IN RE PAULA M. MILLER, Relator · AC Texas · TX
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Case IN RE PAULA M. MILLER involved an unnamed lawyer submitting AI hallucinations.
  • The petition contained attributions and quotations that appeared to be AI-fabricated.
  • The court issued a warning regarding potential future corrective measures.
  • The decision was issued by AC Texas in the state of Texas.
  • Decided on April 23, 2026, the court emphasized counsel must verify AI research.
Referred to the bar
Lawyers used AI and other sources to file witness statements with fictitious authorities, and the High Court accepted their self-referral without contempt.
Al-Haroun · High Court in England and Wales
“freely available generative artificial intelligence tools, trained on a large language model such as ChatGPT are not capable of conducting reliable legal research”
vu.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Al-Haroun; the lawyers used AI tools in court papers.
  • Some cited authorities were fictitious, including one attributed to the judge.
  • The High Court supported their self-referral to the regulator, with no contempt finding.
  • High Court in England and Wales.
  • The page says they used publicly available AI tools, legal search engines and online sources.
Caught, not sanctioned
The court noted a pro per appellant's use of phony citations but ultimately did not impose sanctions.
Patterson v. Nuvision Credit Union · California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two · CA
“Attorneys who have filed briefs containing citations to fabricated legal authority have been sanctioned….Pro se litigants have been warned of the same possible outcome.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Patterson v. Nuvision Credit Union; pro per appellant Trina R. Patterson.
  • Appellant filed a brief containing citations to fabricated legal authority generated by AI.
  • No sanctions were imposed despite warning the pro se litigant.
  • California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (State court).
  • Unpublished opinion authored by Justice Frank J. Menetrez on July 2.
Fined
The court sanctioned self-represented appellants by ordering them to pay the respondent's appellate attorney fees for filing a brief with AI-hallucinated citations.
Varma v. The Bank of New York Mellon · California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two · CA
“[A]ll of those citations bear the hallmarks of fabricated legal authority created by generative artificial intelligence (AI), commonly referred to as AI hallucinations.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Varma v. The Bank of New York Mellon; self-represented appellants Rajesh and Mahima Varma (brief drafted by Trina Patterson).
  • Appellants filed an opening brief containing non-existent legal authorities and fabricated quotes created by generative AI.
  • Monetary fine sanction ordering appellants to pay the Bank of New York's appellate attorney fees (amount to be determined on remand).
  • California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (State court).
  • Decided in late August 2026; Justice Frank J. Menetrez also directed the clerk to forward the opinion to the State Bar to investigate Patterson for unauthorized practice of law.

Showing 51–60 of 851.

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