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.

May 2025 Oct 2026

Charting 447 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
Referred to the bar 2026-01-22
A lawyer relied on AI to submit false quotes and overturned case law, resulting in CLE requirements, a bar referral, and an order to serve the opinion on the client.
Tolbert v. State · CA Georgia · GA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Tolbert v. State
  • Lawyer submitted false quotes, misrepresented case law, and cited overturned authority.
  • Referred to State Bar, ordered to complete CLE, and serve opinion on client.
  • Court of Appeals of Georgia (GA, USA)
  • Decided January 22, 2026; AI tool was implied.
Warned ChatGPT 2026-01-22
A lawyer used ChatGPT to generate fabricated case citations and was ordered by the court to inform their client and staff of the errors.
That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (1) · E.D. California · CA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (1)
  • Lawyer used ChatGPT to generate fabricated case law citations.
  • Ordered to inform client and staff of errors.
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
  • Decided January 22, 2026; ChatGPT explicitly cited as the tool used.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-01-21
Jones filed an appellate brief with non-existent quotations attributed to real cases, and the Seventh Circuit declined to sanction him.
Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't · Solomon Jones · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · IL
“our reaction to the quotation errors in Jones's brief.”
jhany.com ↗
The file →
  • Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't; Solomon Jones, a pro se litigant, was the subject of the court's review.
  • His appellate brief attributed quotations to cases that did not contain them.
  • The Seventh Circuit stopped short of imposing any sanction.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; federal; Illinois.
  • Jan. 21, 2026; the panel suspected AI hallucination but found no reason to believe the misstatements were knowing or intentional.
Reprimanded 2026-01-20
The judge punished four lawyers and canceled the civil trial after some of them filed AI-generated fake case citations.
Jessica B. v. Jones County School District · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · MS
nytimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Jessica B. v. Jones County School District; all four lawyers on opposing sides
  • The page says both sides used artificial intelligence in the lawsuit and the judge punished them
  • The sanction was punishment/reprimand and the proceedings were canceled
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi; Mississippi
  • Dated 2026-01-20; no AI tool or fabricated citations are named on the page
Warned AI-assisted legal software 2026-01-19
The Court admonished the pro se litigant for filings with hallucinated case law and false legal propositions attributed to undeclared generative AI use.
Amit Arora v. Canadian National Railway · Amit Arora · Federal Court

Cases that don't exist

  • Manitoba v. CHRC, 2016 FC 836
  • CP Rail v. Canada (AG), 2015 FC 1348
aivortex.io ↗
The file →
  • Amit Arora v. Canadian National Railway; Amit Arora was the pro se litigant.
  • He filed written representations containing hallucinated case law and false legal propositions.
  • The Court issued a formal admonishment and dismissed the motion; costs were awarded to the respondent.
  • Federal Court; Canada.
  • Jan. 19, 2026; the Court attributed the errors to undeclared, unverified generative AI use.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-01-16
Mingione filed two motions to strike that allegedly contained AI-hallucinated quotes and nonexistent cases; sanctions were sought against him and his client.
J. Salvatore & Sons Inc. v. Gencor Contracting Corp. · Nicholas Mingione · Connecticut Superior Court in Danbury · CT
“"a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal."”
ctinsider.com ↗
The file →
  • J. Salvatore & Sons Inc. v. Gencor Contracting Corp.; Nicholas Mingione was accused
  • He filed two motions to strike with bogus and hallucinated case law, including citations that did not exist
  • Philip Russell sought sanctions, but the article reports only a request, not an imposed sanction
  • State Superior Court in Danbury, Connecticut
  • Jan. 16, 2026; Mingione said his legal research software had an AI component
Fined $5K 2026-01-16
Attorney Faisal S. Ahmed was sanctioned $5,000 and referred to disciplinary authorities after filing a memo with fake and false AI-generated citations.
In the Matter of Faisal S. Ahmed · Faisal S. Ahmed · Hennepin County District Court · MN
“AI, like the advent of word processors and the Internet, can be a powerful tool to aid attorneys in their legal work, but these technological improvements should not be accepted with blind, unyielding faith or used as a substitute for legal analysis and interpretation.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Anderson v. City of Biwabik
  • Doherty v. Alma E. Clark Memorial House
alabnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Faisal S. Ahmed was sanctioned in Minnesota state court.
  • Ahmed used generative AI to research case law for a brief and filed hallucinated and distorted citations without verification.
  • The court imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction and referred the matter to state disciplinary authorities.
  • The underlying proceeding took place in Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota.
  • On January 16, 2026, the sanction and referral were ordered, leading to formal disciplinary charges filed in August 2026.

Showing 601–610 of 857.

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