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
Reprimanded 2026-01-14
Celebrezze filed a disciplinary matter with AI-fabricated legal citations, and the Supreme Court of Ohio sanctioned him.
Disciplinary Counsel v. Celebrezze · Celebrezze · Supreme Court of Ohio · OH
supremecourt.ohio.gov ↗
The file →
  • Disciplinary Counsel v. Celebrezze involved Celebrezze.
  • He submitted a disciplinary filing with AI-fabricated legal citations.
  • The court imposed a reprimand.
  • The sanction came from the Supreme Court of Ohio in Ohio.
  • The order is dated 2026-01-14 and the page excerpt does not name an AI tool.
Fined $50K 2026-01-07
A self-represented litigant cited a fake 'Jyoti Tulsiani' case, and the Bombay High Court imposed adverse costs and a Bar Council warning.
Mr. Deepak s/o Shivkumar Bahry v. Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd. · Deepak Bahry · Bombay High Court · MH
“This practice of dumping documents / submissions on the court and making the court go through irrelevant or non-existing material must be deprecated and nipped in the bud.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Jyoti vs. Elegant Associates
advocateprakhar.com ↗
The file →
  • Deepak Bahry v. Heart & Soul involved a self-represented litigant.
  • He cited a fake 'Jyoti Tulsiani' case in court filings.
  • The Bombay High Court imposed adverse costs and a Bar Council warning.
  • The proceeding was in the Bombay High Court.
  • The page dates the incident to January 2026 and notes a fake cited case name.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-01-07
The court issued an order in a pro se case addressing AI use and requiring citation verification.
Hollinger v. Enlisted Ass’n of the Nat’l Guard of the United States · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · VA
bakerbotts.com ↗
The file →
  • Hollinger v. Enlisted Ass’n of the Nat’l Guard of the United States
  • A pro se matter triggered an EDVA AI-related case-specific order
  • No sanction or amount is stated on the page
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
  • Jan. 7, 2026; cited as one of two recent EDVA examples
Fined $3K 2026-01-06
A pro se plaintiff filed motions to strike with mostly hallucinated citations; the court awarded fees and dismissed the case.
Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia, P.C., et al. · Ga. Super. Ct. · GA
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia, P.C., et al. involved a pro se plaintiff.
  • Her motions to strike contained six citations, most of them AI hallucinations.
  • The court awarded $2,632 in attorneys’ fees and dismissed the case.
  • Georgia Superior Court, state court in Georgia.
  • January 6, 2026; one motion had all four cited cases as fictional AI-generated hallucinations.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-01-01
Plaintiff’s counsel admitted using AI to prepare a factum that included a nonexistent quote and mismatched principles; the court said AI misuse would affect costs.
RSR Road Surface Recycling v. Bonnechere Excavating et al. · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
lawtimesnews.com ↗
The file →
  • RSR Road Surface Recycling v. Bonnechere Excavating et al.; counsel for plaintiff
  • AI was used to prepare the factum and produced hallucinated material
  • The court said AI misuse would be factored into costs
  • Ontario Superior Court of Justice
  • 2026; counsel admitted using AI software
Referred to the bar 2026-01-01
Clearpoint allegedly drafted foreclosure filings with hallucinated citations and the court referred the matter to Arizona regulators instead of making findings.
Pearl Gardner v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · Clearpoint · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · AZ
“The Court stated that the complaint and motions filed in the case bore multiple “hallmarks of AI,” including unusual structure, fabricated citations, and misinterpretations of existing law.”
triallawyersjournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Pearl Gardner v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC involved Clearpoint's foreclosure filings.
  • Clearpoint allegedly used undisclosed AI and included nonexistent legal authorities.
  • The court did not impose a monetary sanction; it referred the matter for investigation.
  • United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Arizona.
  • January 2026 order; the court said the filings bore multiple 'hallmarks of AI.'
Fined Archie 2025-12-19
A response brief contained four problematic citations, including one fabricated citation, and the court imposed Rule 11 sanctions and other restrictions.
Billups v. Louisville Municipal School Distr. · Watson & Norris, PLLC; Jane Watson; Louis Watson; Nick Norris · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · MS
“There's a difference between a seasoned, good lawyer and somebody who uses AI to look like one.”
forbes.com ↗
The file →
  • Billups v. Louisville Municipal School Distr. involved Watson & Norris, PLLC and attorneys Jane Watson, Louis Watson, and Nick Norris.
  • Their response brief contained one totally made-up citation and three citations that misstated holdings.
  • The court imposed sanctions including disqualification, reporting obligations, and restrictions on Watson.
  • The order came from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, dated 2025-12-19.
  • The page says Watson had used an AI tool called Archie only within the firm's litigation-support software, but also used AI elsewhere without verification.
Fined 2025-12-19
A Mississippi federal court sanctioned three attorneys for using AI in an age discrimination case, producing hallucinated citations in that case and others.
Mississippi federal age discrimination case · Jacks Griffith · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · MS
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Three attorneys at Jacks Griffith were sanctioned in a Mississippi federal age discrimination case.
  • They used artificial intelligence and got hallucinated citations in that case and other Mississippi cases.
  • The court imposed sanctions, but the article does not state an amount.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Mississippi.
  • Ordered on Friday, Dec. 19, 2025; Judge Sharion Aycock is listed on the page.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-12-18
The court voided the control procedure and canceled a repayment claim after finding the plaintiff's cited case law did not match published decisions.
Tribunal judiciaire de Périgueux, n° 23/00452 · Tribunal judiciaire de Périgueux (Pôle social)
“requested the plaintiff and his lawyer to check in future that references found via search engines or generative AI are not hallucinations.”
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
  • Tribunal judiciaire de Périgueux, n° 23/00452; the plaintiff and his lawyer
  • Plaintiff cited case-law references that did not correspond to published decisions
  • No sanction was imposed; the court instead canceled the repayment claim
  • Tribunal judiciaire de Périgueux (Pôle social), Périgueux, France
  • 2025-12-18; court warned to verify references from search engines or generative AI
Fined $77K Gemini 2025-12-18
MIO Legal Consultants LLP filed a defence with AI-fabricated and unsupported case citations, and the court ordered indemnity costs.
Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam [2025] ADGMCFI 0032 · MIO Legal Consultants LLP · Abu Dhabi Global Market Court of First Instance
““The fault for reliance on AI hallucinations as factually accurate lies not with the research programme,  but with the person responsible for conducting the search.””
theaskconsultancy.com ↗
The file →
  • Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam [2025] ADGMCFI 0032 involved MIO Legal Consultants LLP.
  • The firm filed a 327-paragraph defence containing cases that did not exist or did not support the propositions cited.
  • The court ordered AED 282,508 in indemnity costs, about USD 77,039.
  • The order was issued by the Abu Dhabi Global Market Court of First Instance in Abu Dhabi.
  • On 2025-12-18, Justice Paul Heath KC said the fault lay with the person responsible for the search, not the AI.

Showing 611–620 of 857.

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