Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this

Incidents tracked

Incidents in 2026

$280,119

In fines, where reported

44 of 53 report an amount

The curve

Incidents per month

Last 18 months of published incidents, by the date of the court's order.

Apr 2025 Jan 2026 Sep 2026

Charting 23 of 53 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 53 Claude 4 Lexis+ AI 4 Westlaw Precision 4 CoCounsel 3 Copilot 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 Archie 1 ChatOn 1 ClearBrief 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 Gemini 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google AI 1 Google Scholar 1 Grok 1 Irys 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 51–53 of 53 incidents involving ChatGPT. Clear filters

Fined $5K ChatGPT 2023-06-22

Counsel cited six nonexistent, ChatGPT-generated cases in an opposition brief and then filed fabricated copies of the opinions when challenged.

Mata v. Avianca · Steven Schwartz, Peter LoDuca, and their firm · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY

“Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctioned Schwartz, co-counsel Peter LoDuca, and their firm $5,000.”

Cases that don't exist

Miller v. DLA Piper LLP (US), 923 F.3d 1297
Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217
Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co. Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339

+3 more

note.com ↗

The file →

In Mata v. Avianca, Inc., two attorneys and their firm were sanctioned.
They cited six nonexistent, ChatGPT-generated cases and filed fabricated opinions.
The sanction was a $5,000 penalty, jointly and severally.
The incident occurred in the S.D.N.Y. federal court.
On 2023-06-22, ChatGPT was identified as the AI tool used, leading to letters to the client and falsely named judges.

Fined ChatGPT 2023-06-22

A New York lawyer was sanctioned after filing briefs with fake court cases generated by ChatGPT.

In re Cathleen Siebrecht · Cathleen Siebrecht · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY

smallwarsjournal.com ↗

The file →

In re Cathleen Siebrecht involved Cathleen Siebrecht, a New York lawyer.
She filed briefs citing fake court cases produced by ChatGPT.
The court sanctioned her, but the article gives no amount.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The page says this happened in 2023 and ties the citations to a ChatGPT hallucination.

Fined $15K ChatGPT 2023-01-01

Two lawyers filed a brief with fake cases after one used ChatGPT; the court imposed a $5,000 fine on each lawyer and the firm.

2023 case in the US district court for the southern district of New York · US District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY

“The summaries of the decisions cited in the brief showed “stylistic and reasoning flaws that do not generally appear in decisions issued by United States Courts of Appeals.””

lawsociety.org.zw ↗

The file →

Two lawyers and their law firm were sanctioned in the US.
They filed a brief citing non-existent cases and could not produce them.
The court imposed a $5,000 fine on each lawyer and the firm, totaling $15,000.
US court; federal jurisdiction implied by the cited courts of appeals.
In 2023; one lawyer had asked ChatGPT to provide supporting evidence.

Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox

New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.