legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
151
Incidents tracked
26
Incidents in 2026
$542,786
In fines, where reported
50 of 151 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 60 of 151 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 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 53 Caught, not sanctioned 32 Warned 19 Referred to the bar 17 Reprimanded 13 Filing dismissed 10 Outcome unclear 6 Suspension 1

Showing 51–60 of 151 incidents involving ChatGPT. Clear filters

Fined $2K ChatGPT
An attorney filed a pleading citing at least six nonexistent cases, and Judge Martínez fined him $1,500 and ordered ethics training and bar reporting.
Unnamed New Mexico attorney · unnamed New Mexico attorney · U.S. Magistrate Judge Damian Martínez · NM
“The six cases were fake and likely the handiwork of a ChatGPT or similar artificial intelligence (AI) program’s hallucinations,”
govtech.com ↗
The file →
  • An unnamed New Mexico attorney was sanctioned for fake citations.
  • He filed a pleading with at least six nonexistent cases.
  • Judge Martínez fined him $1,500 and required bar reporting and AI ethics training.
  • U.S. Magistrate Judge Damian Martínez, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
  • Last year; the article says the fake cases were likely from ChatGPT or a similar AI program.
Warned ChatGPT
A lawyer’s suspected AI use led to fake cases being cited before the tribunal, and the tribunal warned that uploading confidential client documents to ChatGPT breached privilege.
Munir v. Secretary of State for the Home Department · Immigration and Asylum Chamber
blakes.com ↗
The file →
  • Munir v. Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a lawyer suspected of using AI-generated fake cases.
  • The lawyer said he did not know how the fake cases appeared in his submissions.
  • The tribunal warned that uploading confidential client documents into an open-source AI tool breaches client confidentiality and waives privilege.
  • Immigration and Asylum Chamber (U.K.).
  • The page says the lawyer admitted putting client letters and other confidential material in ChatGPT.
Fined $5K ChatGPT
Two New York lawyers filed a brief with six fake ChatGPT-created case citations and were fined $5,000.
Two New York lawyers sanction incident · two New York lawyers · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
cnbc.com ↗
The file →
  • Two New York lawyers were the sanctioned attorneys.
  • They submitted a legal brief with six fake case citations created by ChatGPT.
  • The court fined them $5,000.
  • The matter was in federal court in New York.
  • The page says this happened in 2023, and the AI tool was ChatGPT.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Plaintiffs' attorneys filed AI-generated bogus case law, and the court issued an order to show cause why they should not be sanctioned.
Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiffs' Attorneys Should Not Be Sanctioned · United States District Court for the District of Wyoming · WY
lib.law.uw.edu ↗
The file →
  • Plaintiffs' attorneys in the District of Wyoming
  • They submitted bogus case law created by ChatGPT
  • The court issued an order to show cause, with sanctions threatened
  • United States District Court for the District of Wyoming
  • 2025; the page links this to a 2025 order and names Judge Kelly H. Rankin
Fined $5K ChatGPT
A New York lawyer filed court papers citing fake legal cases generated by ChatGPT, and the judge fined the lawyer and his firm $5,000.
Unknown New York lawyer matter · a New York lawyer · court not named on page · NY
bloomfire.com ↗
The file →
  • A New York lawyer and his firm were fined in court.
  • He filed papers with fake legal cases generated by ChatGPT.
  • The judge imposed a $5,000 fine.
  • The page does not name the court or judge.
  • The article names ChatGPT as the source of the fabricated citations.
Warned ChatGPT
Two lawyers filed a brief with non-existent cases; the High Court warned of severe sanctions after ChatGPT was found to have been used.
High Court of Justice in London warning matter · High Court of Justice in London
“The technology was “not capable of conducting reliable legal research.””
posteo.de ↗
The file →
  • Two lawyers submitted a brief citing cases that could not be found.
  • One lawyer had asked ChatGPT for evidence supporting the claim.
  • The High Court warned of severe sanctions, not a monetary penalty.
  • High Court of Justice in London.
  • Last summer; judge said the tools can produce plausible but incorrect responses.
Outcome unclear ChatGPT
Mr. Sauve filed a new federal complaint using ChatGPT and Claude that was described as a fake case littered with hallucinated citations in violation of court rules.
Sauve · Mr. Sauve · federal court
nytimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Mr. Sauve filed a new federal complaint.
  • The pleading used ChatGPT and Claude and was described as a fake case.
  • The page does not state any sanction or amount.
  • The court is identified only as federal court.
  • No date or judge name is given; the article says the complaint had hallucinated citations.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Attorney Harp was ordered to produce his ChatGPT history so the court could determine whether he had submitted hallucinated AI quotations.
Attorney Harp · Attorney Harp · United States District Court, Northern District of California · CA
websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Harp was the lawyer under scrutiny.
  • The issue was whether he submitted hallucinated AI quotations to the court.
  • The court ordered him to produce his ChatGPT history.
  • United States District Court, Northern District of California.
  • No sanction amount was stated; the order was to investigate possible AI misuse.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.