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
Warned 2025-11-21
An attorney was issued a court warning after filing briefs containing five fabricated case citations and a fake legal norm.
Shields v. First Financial · Tennessee · TN
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Shields v. First Financial involved an unnamed lawyer submitting fabricated legal references.
  • The attorney submitted 5 fabricated cases and 1 fabricated legal norm.
  • The court issued a judicial warning to the attorney.
  • Decided in Tennessee state court.
  • Order issued on November 21, 2025; implied generative AI hallucination.
Referred to the bar $250 ChatGPT-4 2025-11-20
Plaintiff’s counsel filed a settlement-approval motion with AI-generated fake citations, and the court struck it, fined counsel, and referred him for discipline.
Buchanan v. Vuori, Inc. · James Dal Bon · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
“the rise in non-existent cases and quotations hallucinated by artificial intelligence tools”
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Buchanan v. Vuori, Inc.; plaintiff’s counsel was sanctioned
  • A settlement-approval motion contained 8 false quotations and one nonexistent case from AI
  • Court ordered a $250 payment, struck the motions, and referred counsel to the Standing Committee
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, California
  • Nov. 20, 2025; counsel used about six different AI tools and the court found Rule 11 and candor violations
Fined 2025-11-20
Gordon & Thompson filed an amended particulars of claim with two fake AI-generated authorities; the court made a wasted costs order and declined a separate referral of solicitor Raphael Newton to the SRA.
Ndaryiyumvire v Brimingham City University · Gordon & Thompson · Birmingham County Court
““In my judgement, from the evidence that I have heard, it was not Mr Newton that placed false material before the court, it was administrative staff at his firm.””
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Ndaryiyumvire v Brimingham City University involved Gordon & Thompson and solicitor Raphael Newton.
  • An amended claim was filed with two fake cases generated by AI and later withdrawn.
  • The court made a wasted costs order against Gordon & Thompson and did not make a separate SRA referral of Newton.
  • Birmingham County Court, Birmingham.
  • 20 November 2025; the judge said the failure was in substance a failure of management at the firm.
Outcome unclear 2025-11-20
A lawyer submitted court filings featuring two fabricated case citations generated by implied AI tools.
Senat für Familiensachen, 17 WF 144/25 · KG Berlin
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Senat für Familiensachen, 17 WF 144/25 involved an unnamed attorney in Germany.
  • The attorney submitted filings containing 2 fabricated case citations.
  • No specific outcome or monetary penalty was detailed on the page.
  • Decided by the Kammergericht (KG) Berlin court in Germany.
  • Issued on November 20, 2025, with implied use of generative AI.
Reprimanded 2025-11-20
A lawyer received an admonition after submitting a hallucinated Federal Court of Justice citation built from incorrect filing numbers.
KG Berlin, 17 WF 144/25 · KG Berlin
llms-for-lawyers.com ↗
The file →
  • KG Berlin, 17 WF 144/25 involving a German attorney.
  • Lawyer submitted a fake BGH citation combining real journal pages with an invented case number.
  • Received an official judicial admonition (Ermahnung).
  • Kammergericht Berlin (Germany).
  • Dated November 20, 2025; court cited use of a hallucinating AI tool.
Fined $3K 2025-11-19
Pro se defendant Paul Kimmel filed briefs with dozens of fake or misrepresented citations, and Chief Judge Hala Jarbou imposed Rule 11 sanctions.
Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Kimmel · Paul Kimmel · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan · MI
“The Court finds this response inadequate and not credible,”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Kimmel; Paul Kimmel was sanctioned.
  • He submitted filings with dozens of misrepresented or fake cases and citations.
  • The court imposed a $2,900 monetary fine under Rule 11.
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
  • Nov. 19, 2025 order by Chief Judge Hala Jarbou; the court said it need not decide whether AI was actually used.
Fined ChatGPT 2025-11-19
A lawyer was sanctioned with a 500 CAD penalty and denied identity anonymization after filing a ChatGPT-fabricated case citation.
Yuehong v. The Minister of Citizenship & Immigration · Federal Court
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Yuehong v. Minister of Citizenship & Immigration involved an unnamed counsel in Canada.
  • Counsel submitted a brief containing a fabricated case citation from ChatGPT.
  • Ordered to pay a monetary sanction of 500 CAD; court refused to anonymize lawyer's name.
  • Decided in the Federal Court of Canada.
  • Issued November 19, 2025, naming ChatGPT explicitly as the source.
Outcome unclear ChatGPT 2025-11-19
A lawyer relied on ChatGPT, resulting in fabricated legal citations and misrepresented case law in court.
ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:4814 · Rechtbank Noord-Nederland
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:4814 involved an unnamed attorney in the Netherlands.
  • The attorney used ChatGPT, leading to 1 fake case, 1 fake reference, and 1 misrepresented case.
  • No specific sanction outcome was specified in the entry.
  • Decided in the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland in the Netherlands.
  • Issued November 19, 2025; ChatGPT identified as the source.
Referred to the bar 2025-11-19
An attorney was referred to the bar association and had his brief partially struck after submitting AI-fabricated legal authority.
Nº 1.0000.25.200097-1/001 (Antônio Carlos Vieira Barbosa) · Antônio Carlos Vieira Barbosa · TJ Minas Gerais
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Case involved attorney Antônio Carlos Vieira Barbosa in Brazil.
  • The lawyer submitted a fake case citation and a fake doctrinal work.
  • The court referred the lawyer to the Bar and partially struck the brief.
  • Decided by Tribunal de Justiça de Minas Gerais (TJMG) in Brazil.
  • Issued November 19, 2025; implied AI hallucination.
Warned 2025-11-19
A lawyer was warned and had parts of a brief struck for submitting two AI-fabricated case law citations.
0997510 BC Ltd. v. Area 15 · BC PAAB
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • 0997510 BC Ltd. v. Area 15 involved an unnamed lawyer.
  • The lawyer cited two non-existent case law references created by AI.
  • The board issued a warning and struck the affected parts of the brief.
  • Decided by the British Columbia Property Assessment Appeal Board in Canada.
  • Issued November 19, 2025; unidentified AI tool.

Showing 651–660 of 857.

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