legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
199
Incidents tracked
40
Incidents in 2026
$11,578
In fines, where reported
3 of 199 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 75 of 199 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 32 Gemini 4 Claude 2 Perplexity AI 2 AI Overviews 1 ChatGPT-4o 1 ChatOn 1 Eve 1 Grammarly 1 MX2.law 1 OpenCase 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

Showing 51–60 of 199 incidents. Clear filters

Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A practitioner filed a submission quoting a fictional Court of Appeal judgment generated by ChatGPT, and the judge said it wasted public resources.
LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia · Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal · QLD
“the case simply does not exist”
nicholeslaw.com.au ↗
The file →
  • LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia; a practitioner was involved.
  • A written submission quoted a fictional Court of Appeal judgment generated by ChatGPT.
  • No sanction is stated on the page; the judge said it wasted public resources.
  • Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Queensland.
  • 2025; the judge said 'the case simply does not exist' and 'caused a significant waste of public resources.'
Caught, not sanctioned
An AI-generated fake case was cited in a legal brief filed in his courtroom, and he found it did not exist.
State of Illinois v. Unknown · Jeffrey Goffinet · Williamson County court · IL
““People are going to use [AI], and the courts are not going to be able to be a dam across a river that’s already flowing at flood capacity,””
route-fifty.com ↗
The file →
  • Jeffrey Goffinet noticed a brief in his courtroom cited a nonexistent case.
  • The brief contained AI-generated fake legal material.
  • The article reports no sanction or penalty in this incident.
  • Williamson County, Illinois state court.
  • Last spring; Goffinet said courts must learn to coexist with AI.
Caught, not sanctioned
A mother in person filed a skeleton argument assisted by AI that included non-existent citations, and the court noted the errors.
D (a child) (recusal) · Court of Appeal
“It is entirely understandable that litigants in person should resort to artificial intelligence for help.”
unit.law ↗
The file →
  • D (a child) (recusal) involved a mother acting in person.
  • She filed an AI-assisted skeleton argument for a recusal appeal.
  • The page says some citations did not exist at all.
  • Court of Appeal; no sanction is described on the page.
  • Baker LJ said litigants in person may understandably resort to AI for help.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
An attorney used ChatGPT to draft a brief that cited made-up cases, and the resulting case was later recognized as fabricated.
Varghese v. China Southern Airlines

Cases that don't exist

  • Varghese v. China Southern Airlines
zdnet.com ↗
The file →
  • Varghese v. China Southern Airlines involved an attorney who used ChatGPT to prepare a legal brief.
  • The brief contained legal cases that did not actually exist.
  • The page does not name a sanction in this incident.
  • The article says the problem case was fabricated by ChatGPT.
  • The page gives no judge, court, or sanction date for this incident.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A litigant in person filed a submission using a legal phrase that looked Scottish or American, and the judge said it had the hallmarks of ChatGPT.
Reddan v An Bord Pleanála · High Court of Ireland
“This sounds like something that derived from an artificial intelligence source. It has all the hallmarks of ChatGPT, or some similar AI tool.”
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
  • Reddan v An Bord Pleanála involved a litigant in person.
  • The filing used a phrase not used in Ireland and suggested AI generation.
  • No sanction is described on the page.
  • High Court of Ireland.
  • The judge said it had the hallmarks of ChatGPT or similar AI.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A litigant in person used ChatGPT to draft an appeal submission containing fake cases, and the ruling reiterated that an unrepresented person must not mislead the court.
Barton v Wright Hassell LLP · UK Supreme Court
““an unrepresented person is still under a duty not to mislead the court””
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
  • Barton v Wright Hassell LLP involved a litigant in person.
  • He used ChatGPT to draft a submission with fake cases.
  • The page reports no sanction, only a warning principle from the ruling.
  • UK Supreme Court.
  • The ruling quoted the duty of an unrepresented person not to mislead the court.
Caught, not sanctioned
The court found briefing with citations to nonexistent judicial opinions potentially derived from generative AI and sanctioned the respondent.
Eric Chibueze Nwaubani · Eric Chibueze Nwaubani · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · NY
websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com ↗
The file →
  • Eric Chibueze Nwaubani was the respondent in the matter.
  • His briefing contained citations to nonexistent judicial opinions.
  • The court imposed sanctions, but the page excerpt does not state a monetary amount.
  • The matter was in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  • The page says the fake citations were potentially derived from generative artificial intelligence.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
The Upper Tribunal held a Hamid hearing over two immigration matters involving incorrect or fake case citations that did not match the cited cases.
UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid) [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“to put client letters and decision letters from the Home Office into an open source AI tool, such as ChatGPT, is to place this information on the internet in the public domain, and thus to breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege, and thus any regulated legal professional or firm that does so would, in addition to needing to bring this to the attention of their regulator, be advised to consult with the Information Commissioner’s Office.”
gowlingwlg.com ↗
The file →
  • UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid) [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) was the latest case discussed.
  • It involved two separate instances of suspected AI-invented or otherwise incorrect case citations.
  • The article says one case looked trivial and the other serious, but the tribunal may not have actually sanctioned anyone.
  • The court was the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).
  • Published 2026-02-24; the article notes the tribunal may have been too quick to cry AI.
Caught, not sanctioned
An attorney filed a brief with AI-generated case citations that did not exist and later resigned.
Court records show an attorney resigned after submitting a filing with AI-generated case citations that did not exist
threads.com ↗
The file →
  • An attorney was involved in a filing with AI-generated case citations that did not exist.
  • The filing used fabricated citations generated by AI.
  • No sanction is stated on the page; the attorney resigned.
  • The court is not identified on the page.
  • The page gives no date, judge, or AI tool name.
Caught, not sanctioned
A filing cited nonexistent cases generated by AI, and the Third DCA warned courts should not have to parse citations to see whether cases exist.
Takefman v. Pickleball Club, LLC · Third District Court of Appeal · FL
“courts “should not have to parse case citations and parentheticals to discern whether cases exist.””
miamidadebar.org ↗
The file →
  • Takefman v. Pickleball Club, LLC involved a filing with AI-generated nonexistent cases.
  • The filing contained fabricated legal authority from AI.
  • The court addressed the problem but the page does not report a sanction.
  • Third District Court of Appeal, Florida.
  • The page does not name the AI tool; it quotes the court on checking whether cases exist.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.