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
Fined 2025-12-01
Counsel filed a brief reproducing a fake precedent and incomplete case number, resulting in a fine and a bar referral.
José Carlos Pinto de Faria v. Prevent TWB do Brasil et al. · TJ San Paulo
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • José Carlos Pinto de Faria v. Prevent TWB do Brasil et al. involving counsel for agravante.
  • Counsel reproduced a fabricated precedent from an AI tool with an incomplete case number.
  • Court ruled it bad-faith litigation, imposing a 2% fine of the cause's value and referring counsel to OAB/SP.
  • TJ San Paulo (Brazil).
  • Decided December 1, 2025.
Referred to the bar 2025-11-28
The court disqualified the defense attorney and referred her to the Bar Association after a brief with fabricated case law and misrepresented precedents, likely from unverified AI use.
Elías Axel Roberto Rafael s/ Abuso sexual con acceso carnal · CSJ de Tucumán
“No puede soslayarse, como hecho de gravedad institucional, que la defensa técnica del imputado - en el momento procesal que constituye la última instancia de revisión extraordinaria local- haya presentado un escrito elaborado posiblemente mediante el uso de herramientas de inteligencia artificial, u obtenidos a través de medios no confiables y fidedignos sin ejercer el más mínimo control sobre la veracidad de las citas jurisprudenciales, la autenticidad de las fuentes invocadas ni la coherencia dogmática de los fundamentos empleados.La conducta descripta trasciende el mero error material o descuido profesional: configura un supuesto de negligencia grave incompatible con los deberes de probidad, lealtad y diligencia que rigen la funcióndel abogado defensor.La defensa penal no puede convertirse en unespacio de experimentación de medios y/o tecnologías de manera irresponsable que - aunque de utilidad potencial - requieren un manejo prudente, crítico y siempre supervisado por el criterio humano. El ejercicio de la defensa en juicio, protegido por el art. 18 de la Constitución Nacional y por los instrumentos internacionales con jerarquía constitucional, exige una intervención personal, reflexiva y fundada de quien ejerce la representación técnica. El uso automático y acrítico de un asistente artificial, o la utilización de fuentes con procedencia desconocida para producir un escrito en la instancia recursiva vulnera no solo el deber de diligencia, sino también el derecho del imputado a una defensa real y efectiva.”
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Elías Axel Roberto Rafael s/ Abuso sexual con acceso carnal; defense attorney
  • Filed a brief with fabricated case law and misrepresented precedents
  • Attorney disqualified and referred to the Bar Association; no amount stated
  • CSJ de Tucumán, Argentina
  • 2025-11-28; court inferred possible AI use from the errors
Outcome unclear 2025-11-28
A pro se litigant submitted filing with fake citations in the D. Colorado court.
Hanson v. Nest Home Lending, LLC et al. · D. Colorado · CO
aivortex.io ↗
The file →
  • A pro se litigant in Hanson v. Nest Home Lending, LLC et al.
  • The pro se litigant used fake citations.
  • The sanction type and amount are not recorded.
  • The incident occurred in the D. Colorado court, federal jurisdiction, Colorado.
  • The incident date is 2025-11-28, and the case involved fake citations.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-11-27
A barrister used ChatGPT to draft appeal grounds with a false citation and the tribunal reported him to the Bar Standards Board but did not start contempt proceedings.
MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
barcouncil.org.uk ↗
The file →
  • MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a barrister before the Upper Tribunal.
  • He included a false citation and later used ChatGPT to draft the grounds of appeal.
  • The tribunal referred him to the Bar Standards Board but did not initiate contempt proceedings.
  • Court: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), Bangladesh; [2025] UKUT 305 (IAC).
  • Date: 2025-11-27; he did not use Westlaw or Lexis Nexis to check the work.
Fined $5K 2025-11-25
Lucas used AI to draft an opening brief without verifying citations, and the Court of Appeal imposed a $5,000 sanction.
County of Los Angeles v. Niblett · Robert W. Lucas · California Court of Appeal, Division One · CA
“It…appears Attorney Lucas used artificial intelligence to prepare the opening brief, filed the brief without verifying the accuracy of the case authority it discusses, and failed to correct his mis citation of cases appearing in the opening brief despite the County’s appellate brief noting these errors.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
  • County of Los Angeles v. Niblett; Robert W. Lucas
  • He admitted he misused artificial intelligence in the opening brief
  • Court of Appeal imposed a $5,000 sanction
  • California Court of Appeal, Division One
  • Nov. 25, 2025; Bendix said Lucas showed troubling disregard for duties as an officer of the court
Reprimanded ChatGPT 2025-11-21
Gordon Rees submitted filings with hallucinated AI citations; Judge Christopher L. Hawkins declined to sanction the firm but reprimanded former lawyer Cassie D. Preston.
In re Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc., et al. · Gordon Rees; Cassie Preston · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama · AL
“attorneys must not allow their personal feelings to cloud their professional judgment, and Ms. Preston crossed a line when she resorted to making use of arguments and authorities generated by artificial intelligence”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Jackson Hosp. & Clinic Inc. and Cassie Preston were sanctioned in bankruptcy court.
  • She submitted filings with artificial-intelligence generated fake citations.
  • The court publicly reprimanded her and ordered disclosure/compliance steps, with no monetary amount stated.
  • US Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama; Judge Christopher L. Hawkins.
  • Order dated 2025-11-21; the opinion also found misleading and fabricated citations.
Fined $1K 2025-11-21
A lawyer submitted fabricated case citations, resulting in monetary sanctions, CLE requirements, and a state bar referral.
Nuvola, LLC v. Wright · Minnesota DC · MN
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Nuvola, LLC v. Wright involved an unnamed attorney submitting AI-fabricated case law.
  • The court found the lawyer relied on fabricated legal citations in court filings.
  • Sanctions included a $1,000 fine, five CLE presentation requirements, and a Bar referral.
  • Heard in the Minnesota District Court.
  • Order issued on November 21, 2025, using an unidentified AI tool.
Warned 2025-11-21
A employer's lawyer submitted non-existent case citations in an arbitration proceeding, prompting a judicial warning from the tribunal.
Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs c. Centre L’Autre Maison inc. · Tribunal d'arbitrage (Québec)
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Syndicat des travailleuses v. Centre L'Autre Maison inc. involved an unnamed employer's lawyer.
  • The lawyer submitted non-existent jurisprudence (fabricated case law) in arbitration.
  • The tribunal issued a warning and criticized the conduct as reprehensible.
  • Decided by the Tribunal d'arbitrage (Québec) in Canada.
  • Issued on November 21, 2025; noted AI hallucinations waste time and increase costs.

Showing 641–650 of 857.

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