legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
126
Incidents tracked
50
Incidents in 2026
$4,000
In fines, where reported
1 of 126 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 74 of 126 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 20 Copilot 5 AI-assisted legal software 2 ChatGPT-4o 1 Claude 1 CoCounsel 1 Legal Genius 1 Lexis+ AI 1 Strongsuit 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 126 incidents. Clear filters

Warned 2026-07-13
A lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law and false quotes, resulting in a warning.
Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al. · D. Nevada · NV
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al.
  • Attorney included a fabricated case and false quotes in a legal brief
  • Court issued a formal warning
  • US District Court for the District of Nevada
  • Decided July 13, 2026; unidentified AI tool was used
Warned 2026-06-22
A lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law, resulting in a warning from the court.
Zhdanovich-Doty v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company · N.D. California · CA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Zhdanovich-Doty v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, a lawyer received a warning.
  • The lawyer submitted filings that contained fabricated case law, implying AI misuse.
  • The court issued a warning to the lawyer.
  • The incident occurred in a federal court, the Northern District of California.
  • On June 22, 2026, a warning was issued after fabricated case law was found in the filings.
Warned 2026-05-28
A lawyer submitted filings containing impliedly fabricated case law, false quotes, and misrepresented case law, resulting in a warning.
Roger Patel et al. v. Chandresh Patel et al. · W.D. Kentucky · KY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer was involved in Roger Patel et al. v. Chandresh Patel et al.
  • Filings contained impliedly fabricated case law, false quotes, and misrepresented case law.
  • The court issued a warning.
  • The incident occurred in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
  • Dated May 28, 2026, the AI tool was implied.
Warned 2026-05-27
A lawyer cited a non-existent authority, which was conceded to be from AI, leading to a warning and exclusion of contentions relying on the fabricated authority.
Williamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, Inc.) · D. Delaware · DE
“The Court identified at least one instance where Plaintiff cited a non-existent authority and informed Plaintiff. Plaintiff conceded the fictitious citation likely resulted from artificial intelligence. The Court excluded any contentions relying on the fabricated authority from its consideration and stated it would consider whether any additional action is required.”
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer for Williamson cited a non-existent authority.
  • The fictitious citation likely resulted from artificial intelligence.
  • The court issued a warning and excluded contentions relying on the fabricated authority.
  • The incident occurred in the U.S. District Court of Delaware.
  • Dated May 27, 2026, the AI tool was unidentified, and the judge considered additional action.
Warned Claude 2026-05-15
A motion to quash included Claude-generated phantom quotations, and the lawyers apologized to the court; the page does not report a sanction order.
AFGE v. Trump · Binnall Law Group PLLC; Jason Greaves; Jesse Binnall; Lindsay McKasson · US District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
““While I reviewed the cited cases generally to confirm their applicability, as well as many other cases that I reviewed, I did not double check the quotations and obviously did not read the cited cases carefully,” Greaves wrote.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • AFGE v. Trump involved Binnall Law Group PLLC lawyers.
  • Jason Greaves used Claude Console to draft a motion to quash a subpoena.
  • The motion included “phantom” quotations, prompting apologies to the court.
  • Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California, California.
  • Date: 2026-05-15; the page describes the misuse but reports no sanction order.
Warned 2026-05-13
A cited authority could not be located, the reference was disregarded, and the court warned that fabricated authorities generated by AI can lead to sanction.
World Kuk Sool Association, Inc v Alex Paul · not stated
“It is important for parties to be aware that they have a duty not to mislead the tribunal and that the fabrication of authorities (whether intentionally or because references generated through Artificial Intelligence have not been verified) can lead to sanction.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • World Kuk Sool Association, Inc v Alex Paul involved [redacted name].
  • A citation was checked and then disregarded after it could not be found.
  • The court warned that fabricated authorities can lead to sanction.
  • Court not stated on the page.
  • 13 May 2026; the court said AI-generated references must be verified.
Warned 2026-05-12
The court said the plaintiff’s filing contained improperly cited case law and ordered a letter on whether generative AI was used.
Powell v. Borough of Bergenfield · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
“Pro se litigants are not shielded from the sanctions offered by Rule 11”
oslaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Powell v. Borough of Bergenfield; a pro se plaintiff was involved
  • The filing contained improperly cited case law and may have used generative AI
  • The court ordered a letter explaining any AI use and why sanctions should not issue
  • District of New Jersey, New Jersey
  • Order dated 2026-05-12; the court invoked Rule 11
Warned 2026-05-06
A litigant in person filed AI-generated submissions with hallucinated authorities, and the tribunal warned that no person has immunity from sanction.
Rafique v HMRC · First-tier Tribunal
“no person has immunity from sanction”
searchthe.law ↗
The file →
  • Rafique v HMRC is the named case.
  • The submissions were found to be AI-generated with hallucinated authorities.
  • The tribunal stated that fabricated authorities cited as genuine are contempt of court.
  • The court was the First-tier Tribunal.
  • Decided 6 May 2026; the article says it was a warning shot for litigants in person.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.