legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
251
Incidents tracked
81
Incidents in 2026
$1,813,310
In fines, where reported
186 of 251 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 139 of 251 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 251 Caught, not sanctioned 199 Warned 125 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 56 Filing dismissed 37 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1

Showing 51–60 of 251 incidents. Clear filters

Fined
A Commercial Division justice awarded fees under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 against clients and counsel after AI-fabricated citations appeared in a summary-judgment opposition and sanctions opposition.
Ader v. Ader · Commercial Division, New York Supreme Court · NY
“Use of AI is not the problem per se.”
nlrg.com ↗
The file →
  • Ader v. Ader; clients and counsel were sanctioned
  • A summary-judgment opposition contained AI-fabricated citations
  • The court awarded fees under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1
  • Commercial Division, New York Supreme Court, New York County
  • The page says the sanctions motion response contained more than double the number of fake citations
Fined $6K
A New Jersey federal judge sanctioned attorney Leo Maury Gordon for filing a hallucinated AI case citation and ignoring repeated warnings to verify his submissions.
Leo Maury Gordon · Leo Maury Gordon · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Leo Maury Gordon was sanctioned in the D.N.J.
  • He relied on a hallucinated AI case citation in a civil suit accusing Sean Combs and others.
  • The court ordered him to pay $6,000 and self-report to disciplinary authorities.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, New Jersey.
  • Law360 said the judge found he ignored repeated warnings to verify his filings.
Fined $5K
Defense counsel filed a brief and later papers citing 23 fabricated cases, then the New York appellate court imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction.
Joshua A. Douglass · Joshua A. Douglass · New York appellate court · NY
“Defendant’s opening brief cites six cases which do not exist.”
legalethicslawyer.blog ↗
The file →
  • Joshua A. Douglass was sanctioned in a New York foreclosure appeal.
  • He filed a brief and later papers containing hallucinated and fabricated legal authorities.
  • The court imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction.
  • The matter was in a New York appellate court.
  • The opinion says he used AI and that five filings contained at least 23 fabricated cases.
Fined $10K
An attorney filed fabricated case citations and quotations, and the court imposed a total $10,000 sanction.
Mid Cent. Operating Engrs. Health & Welfare Fund v HoosierVac LLC · State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department · NY

Cases that don't exist

  • Mid Cent. Operating Engrs. Health & Welfare Fund v HoosierVac LLC, 2025 WL ...
hinshawlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Mid Cent. Operating Engrs. Health & Welfare Fund v HoosierVac LLC involved an attorney sanctioned for AI-fabricated citations.
  • The filing contained fabricated case citations and quotations.
  • The court imposed a total $10,000 sanction.
  • The court was the State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.
  • The page does not identify an AI tool or provide a quoted judge statement.
Fined
An AI-drafted employee claim cited three phantom Full Bench authorities, and Deputy President World rejected it.
Deputy President World rejected a claim citing three phantom Full Bench authorities · Fair Work Commission
“Deputy President World rejected a claim citing three phantom Full Bench authorities, warning of costs.”
winterconsulting.com.au ↗
The file →
  • AI-drafted employee claim cited three phantom Full Bench authorities.
  • The filing used fabricated case references and was rejected.
  • The page says there was a warning of costs, but gives no amount.
  • Fair Work Commission; location not stated.
  • 2025; the page does not name the AI tool.
Fined $1K
A self-represented litigant filed a factum citing fake authorities, and the ABKB ordered additional costs.
Barrette v. Wevers · Alberta Court of King’s Bench
“"wild goose chase"”
commerciallitigationblog.com ↗
The file →
  • Barrette v. Wevers involved a self-represented litigant.
  • His factum referenced at least three fake authorities, including two fake cases and one fake regulation.
  • The ABKB ordered CA$1,000 per set of respondents in additional costs.
  • The court was the Alberta Court of King’s Bench in Alberta.
  • The ABKB said the litigant sent counsel and the court on a "wild goose chase" and had to "up the ante".
Fined $500
A self-represented litigant filed a factum using AI that referenced three non-existent cases, and the ABCA ordered additional costs.
DJ v. SN · Alberta Court of Appeal
“"more substantial penalties" will follow in future cases of non-compliance with the Notice.”
commerciallitigationblog.com ↗
The file →
  • DJ v. SN involved a self-represented litigant.
  • Her factum admitted using AI and cited three non-existent cases.
  • The ABCA awarded CA$500 in additional costs.
  • The court was the Alberta Court of Appeal in Alberta.
  • The court warned that "more substantial penalties" would follow for future non-compliance.
Fined
Lawyers filed submissions containing fictitious cases and authorities, and the High Court sanctioned them and ordered personal costs.
Ng Yat Chun v. Public Prosecutor · High Court of Singapore
techandjustice.bsg.ox.ac.uk ↗
The file →
  • Ng Yat Chun v. Public Prosecutor; lawyers were sanctioned
  • Submissions used AI and included fictitious cases and authorities
  • The court ordered personal costs against the lawyers
  • High Court of Singapore, Singapore
  • The page says this was one of at least two civil cases in Singapore
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.