legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
98
Incidents tracked
30
Incidents in 2026
$386,941
In fines, where reported
14 of 98 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 57 of 98 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 17 Claude 2 CoCounsel 2 LEAP 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 ChatGPT-4 1 Copilot 1 GPT-3.5 1 Gemini 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 98 incidents. Clear filters

Referred to the bar 2026-05-22
ICC Judge Mullen rebuked Pinsent Masons for misleading the court twice by citing a non-existent insolvency rule and repeating the error in an AI-drafted letter.
Anthony Malcolm Cork & Anor v Mark Smith · Pinsent Masons LLP · High Court of England and Wales, Chancery Division
“legal professionals bear ultimate responsibility for their work and cannot outsource the process of legal research or of legal reasoning to an AI.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Cork & Anor v Smith [2026] EWHC 1199 (Ch) involved law firm Pinsent Masons.
  • The firm cited a non-existent Insolvency Rule and used AI to draft an explanatory letter repeating the error.
  • The judge ordered a copy of the judgment sent to the SRA despite the firm's self-referral.
  • The ruling was delivered by ICC Judge Mullen in the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division).
  • On May 22, 2026, the court found the firm misled the court twice on a block transfer application.
Referred to the bar $17K 2026-04-24
A lawyer submitted filings with fabricated case law and false quotes, resulting in an adverse costs order, doubled costs, filing prohibition, and bar referral.
Laurie Ibach and Mark Stewart v. Bruce Stewart · Counsel for Laurie Ibach and Mark Stewart · Alabama Supreme Court · AL
“nothing to review”
alabamaworkerscompblawg.com ↗
The file →
  • Laurie Ibach and Mark Stewart v. Bruce Stewart involved a lawyer using an unidentified AI tool.
  • The lawyer submitted filings with fabricated case law and false quotes.
  • The lawyer faced an adverse costs order, doubled costs, filing prohibition, and a bar referral, totaling $17,200.
  • The incident occurred in the SC Alabama, a state court.
  • The sanction was issued on April 24, 2026, due to AI-generated legal fabrications.
Referred to the bar LEAP 2026-04-23
AML Legal filed appeal papers with incorrect legal citations suspected to be AI-generated, and HHJ Grimshaw referred the matter to the regulator.
Rodney v Gee’z Micro Bar & Pitstop · AML Legal; Kossar Qureshi; Mahmood Hussain · His Honour Judge Grimshaw
“Misleading material was placed before the court in terms of mis-cited legal authorities, said to support propositions that they simply did not, when even the most simple of checks would have shown that to not be the case, or shown it to be the case, i.e. that they were incorrect,”
regulationandcomplianceoffice.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Rodney v Gee’z Micro Bar & Pitstop involved AML Legal, Kossar Qureshi, and Mahmood Hussain.
  • The firm submitted three documents with incorrect citations suspected to have been produced with generative AI.
  • HHJ Grimshaw referred the matter to the regulator; no monetary sanction was stated.
  • Court: civil appeal application, West Midlands, England and Wales.
  • Date not given; the judge said simple checks would have caught the mis-cited authorities.
Referred to the bar CoCounsel 2026-04-03
Counsel used a Gen AI platform to draft two briefs with fabricated quotations and misstatements, and the court removed him, denied CJA compensation, and referred him out.
United States v. Farris · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
“inexcusable transgressions”
holonlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • United States v. Farris; court-appointed counsel was sanctioned
  • Two briefs drafted with Gen AI contained fabricated quotations and mischaracterized holdings
  • Removal from case, denial of all CJA compensation, and referral
  • Sixth Circuit
  • 2026; the court credited candor and a clean 40-year record but still found inexcusable transgressions
Referred to the bar $56K CoCounsel 2026-03-31
A lawyer filed documents with fabricated case law, misrepresented case law, and outdated advice, resulting in a reprimand, order to file order in subsequent cases, bar referral, and adverse costs.
Heimkes v. Fairhope Motorcoach Resort Condominium Owners Association, Inc. · S.D. Alabama · AL
aininja.academy ↗
The file →
  • Heimkes v. Fairhope Motorcoach Resort Condominium Owners Association, Inc. involved a lawyer using Cocounsel (Westlaw).
  • The lawyer submitted fabricated case law, misrepresented case law, and outdated advice.
  • The lawyer received a reprimand, an order to file the order in subsequent cases, a bar referral, and $55,597 in adverse costs.
  • The incident occurred in the S.D. Alabama, a federal court.
  • The sanction was issued on March 31, 2026, due to AI-generated legal errors.
Referred to the bar 2026-03-11
A solicitor filed material with seven non-existent cases and 12 non-existent quotations; Justice Kristen Walker referred the matter to the Legal Services Commissioner.
Oberoi v Douglas [2026] VSCA 31 · Dib & Associates Lawyers · Supreme Court of Victoria · VIC
“It is not acceptable for artificial intelligence to be used by solicitors or barristers in the production of court documents, unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified,”
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Oberoi v Douglas [2026] VSCA 31 involved a solicitor represented by Dib & Associates Lawyers.
  • The solicitor's written material contained seven non-existent cases and 12 quotations that could not be located.
  • Justice Kristen Walker referred the solicitor to the Legal Services Commissioner for investigation.
  • Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia.
  • March 11, 2026; the solicitor ignored emails seeking an explanation and the court noted serious concerns about potential AI use.
Referred to the bar 2026-03-10
Khalid Parvaiz filed a factum with fake quotations attributed to real cases, and Justice Frederick Myers said he would refer the matter to the Law Society of Ontario.
Kapahi Real Estate Inc. v. Elite Real Estate Club of Toronto Inc. · Ontario Superior Court of Justice · ON
““The alleged quotations set out in the reply factum are not efforts to quote an actual part of the case that contain a transposition error or two,” Myers wrote. “Rather, they are completely made up. Nothing like them appears in the precedents from which they are said to be quoted.””
lawtimesnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Kapahi Real Estate Inc. v. Elite Real Estate Club of Toronto Inc.; Khalid Parvaiz
  • Parvaiz filed a factum with real case citations but wholly made up quotations
  • Justice Myers said he would refer the matter to the Law Society of Ontario
  • Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario
  • March 10, 2026; Myers said the quotations were completely made up
Referred to the bar 2026-02-02
Lawyer submitted fabricated case law, resulting in a monetary sanction of 620,000 ARS, bar referral, and an adverse costs order.
Ortiz Fatima Cecilia v. Booking.com y otros · JCC de Tucumán
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Ortiz Fatima Cecilia v. Booking.com y otros involved an attorney submitting fake case law.
  • The attorney submitted filings containing fabricated case law.
  • The court imposed a 620,000 ARS fine, a bar referral, and an adverse costs order.
  • The case was decided in JCC de Tucumán, Argentina.
  • Decided on February 2, 2026.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.