legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
857
Incidents tracked
266
Incidents in 2026
$2,397,608
In fines, where reported
212 of 857 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 452 of 857 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 147 Claude 9 CoCounsel 8 Copilot 8 Gemini 8 Lexis+ AI 6 AI-assisted legal software 4 Westlaw Precision 4 ChatGPT-4o 2 ChatOn 2 Eve 2 Google AI 2 LEAP 2 Perplexity AI 2 AI Overviews 1 Archie 1 Centient AI 1 ChatGPT-4 1 ClearBrief 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 GPT-3.5 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google Scholar 1 Grammarly 1 Grok 1 Irys 1 Legal Genius 1 LegalAI 1 MX2.law 1 OpenCase 1 Strongsuit 1 vLex Fastcase 1

Counts only incidents where the filing court or the reporting named the tool.

Hall of Shame

All Fined 249 Caught, not sanctioned 198 Warned 124 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 57 Filing dismissed 39 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
Warned 2026-01-30
The representative admitted AI-created phantom references after the issue was pointed out, and the court warned him.
PSAHSC v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2026] EWHC 141 · Unregulated Rep, Litigation Friend · High Court of England and Wales
“This was pointed out to him at the hearing.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • PSAHSC v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2026] EWHC 141 involved an unregulated representative and litigation friend.
  • He used references that the court said were phantoms created by AI.
  • The outcome was a warning.
  • High Court of England and Wales.
  • 30 Jan 2026; he promised not to use AI to generate submissions in future.
Warned ChatGPT 2026-01-29
The appellant used ChatGPT to draft legal submissions and cited cases the tribunal could not locate; the tribunal refused his application and noted possible referral if he were registered.
Folarin v The Immigration Services Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 135 · UK First-tier Tribunal
““This would have had the effect of misleading the Tribunal had the Tribunal not challenged the point.””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Folarin v The Immigration Services Commissioner; the appellant's submissions
  • He used ChatGPT and other AI tools to find and summarize cases, some of which could not be located
  • No formal sanction, but the tribunal found he was not fit to provide immigration advice
  • UK First-tier Tribunal
  • 2026; tribunal stressed that false citations could mislead and that a future regulator referral was possible
Fined $2K 2026-01-29
Paralegal Derya Vural submitted written filings with AI-generated fake cases and laws, and was ordered to personally pay $2,000 to opposing counsel.
Andrey Ivanov & Hometrade Realty Inc. Brokerage v. Uri Kiselman & Viva Solar Inc. · Derya Vural · ON SCSM
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Andrey Ivanov v. Uri Kiselman involved paralegal Derya Vural.
  • Vural submitted citations containing AI-generated fake cases and non-existent statutory sections.
  • The court ordered Vural to personally pay $2,000 to opposing counsel in trust.
  • Decided in the Ontario Small Claims Court (Canada).
  • Decided on January 29, 2026, following a show cause opportunity.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-01-28
A protester filed a bid protest with hallucinated or unverified legal citations, and GAO dismissed the protest but declined to impose sanctions.
Bramstedt Surgical Inc. · Government Accountability Office
““close and careful attorney supervision, fact-checking, and citation-checking are absolute necessities when utilizing AI or any of its subsets.””
govconjudicata.com ↗
The file →
  • Bramstedt Surgical Inc. was the protest at issue.
  • The protest filing included citations GAO said had hallmarks of unverified AI/LLM drafting.
  • GAO dismissed the protest and declined sanctions.
  • The forum was the Government Accountability Office in federal bid protest practice.
  • GAO issued its decision on 2026-01-28 and warned that non-existent case law can lead to sanctions.
Warned $4K 2026-01-28
Jeffrey Goldin signed a motion to dismiss with AI-generated false citations; Judge Kearney declined a monetary sanction but ordered a non-monetary corrective distribution.
Lifetime Well LLC v. IBSPOT.Com, Inc. · Jeffrey Goldin · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
“the burden should not have fallen on us to expend judicial resources identifying blatantly false cites.”
ediscoverytoday.com ↗
The file →
  • IBSpot.com motion to dismiss filed by Jeffrey Goldin and Yen-Yi Anderson
  • The filing contained AI-generated false citations that Goldin did not catch before filing
  • Goldin received no monetary sanction but had to circulate the decision and his AI policy
  • U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania, Judge Mark A. Kearney
  • 2026-01-28; Goldin had completed CLE and other remedial steps
Warned 2026-01-28
The court warned that filings with AI-fabricated or incorrect citations may be struck and may draw sanctions, referral, disqualification, filing restrictions, or dismissal.
AI-assisted filings with fabricated or incorrect legal citations · United States District Court for the District of Kansas · KS
“Litigants are therefore responsible for reviewing and verifying the accuracy of all content filed with this court that was drafted or assisted by an AI tool.”
josephhollander.com ↗
The file →
  • SO 26-01 was issued by the District of Kansas court.
  • It addressed filings containing false statements and fabricated or incorrect legal citations.
  • The order did not impose a monetary sanction; it warned of possible sanctions.
  • United States District Court for the District of Kansas, Kansas.
  • 2026-01-28; signed by Chief Judge John W. Broomes and warned about AI-assisted filings.
Fined $10K 2026-01-27
Counsel filed a brief containing unverified authorities, resulting in $10,000 in monetary consequences and the brief being struck.
Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C. · Sup. Ct., Suffolk County · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C., counsel filed unverified authorities.
  • A brief was filed containing unverified legal authorities.
  • The court imposed $10,000 in monetary consequences and struck the brief.
  • The incident occurred in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, New York.
  • The decision date was January 27, 2026, and highlighted the importance of verifying submissions against reputable sources.

Showing 591–600 of 857.

Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.