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
Outcome unclear 2025-11-18
A lawyer submitted briefs featuring fabricated case law, fake quotes, and misrepresented precedents.
Jorge Paredes Guevara v. A&P Restaurant Corp., et al. · S.D. New York · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Jorge Paredes Guevara v. A&P Restaurant Corp. involved an unnamed lawyer.
  • Filing contained 2 fabricated cases, 1 fake quote, 1 fake legal norm, and 1 misrepresented case.
  • No specific sanction outcome was specified in the summary table.
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  • Issued November 18, 2025; implied generative AI hallucination.
Fined $10K 2025-11-18
A lawyer was publicly admonished and ordered to pay $10,000 in costs for submitting three fabricated case citations.
Medical Buyers Group LLC d/b/a Integrity v. Candice Pence, et al. · M.D. Georgia · GA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Medical Buyers Group LLC v. Pence involved an unnamed attorney.
  • The attorney submitted 3 fabricated cases and 1 misrepresented case.
  • Court issued a public admonishment and ordered $10,000 in costs to opposing counsel.
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
  • Order issued November 18, 2025; implied AI hallucination.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-11-18
A tribunal rejected fraud claims after a lawyer cited a non-existent statute fabricated by AI.
Small Moves Canada Inc. v. Garner · BC CRT
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Small Moves Canada Inc. v. Garner involved an unnamed attorney.
  • The lawyer cited the non-existent 'British Columbia Fraudulent Transactions Act'.
  • The tribunal declined to consider or add fraud claims based on the fake statute.
  • Decided by the Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia, Canada.
  • Issued November 18, 2025; implied AI hallucination.
Fined $2K 2025-11-17
Grotke filed a supersedeas petition and opening brief with fabricated legal citations, and the court sanctioned him $1,750.
Schlicter v. Kennedy · California Court of Appeal, Division 2, Fourth Appellate District · CA
“Grotke's spurious citations bear the hallmarks of hallucinated citations produced by generative AI.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Schlichter v. Kennedy; attorney Jeffrey Dean Grotke was sanctioned.
  • He filed a petition and opening brief with fabricated citations generated at least in part using AI.
  • The court imposed a $1,750 sanction payable to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
  • California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, in California.
  • Filed Monday; the order said the citations bore hallmarks of hallucinated citations produced by generative AI.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-11-17
CLP filed judicial-review grounds with bogus authorities and the Upper Tribunal said the author and COLP should expect referral.
R (Munir) v SSHD · Mr. Zubair Rasheed of City Law Practice Solicitors · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“It would be easy to think that this is a case about the naïve use of generative AI, but it is not merely about that; it is principally about supervision and the obligation to ensure that the tribunal is not misled.”
sra.org.uk ↗
The file →
  • R (Munir) v SSHD involved City Law Practice Solicitors and Advocates and Zubair Rasheed.
  • Judicial-review grounds were filed with bogus authorities and incorrect citations.
  • The Upper Tribunal said the conduct should ordinarily be referred to a regulator.
  • Upper Tribunal (IAC), United Kingdom; Judges Lindsley, Keith and Blundell.
  • 17 November 2025; the court stressed supervision failures and mentioned ChatGPT.
Fined $500 Descrybe.ai 2025-11-17
Attorney Stich was ordered to pay a $500 monetary sanction for submitting three hallucinated case citations against a pro se opponent.
Cojom v. Roblen LLC · David P. Stich · U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · CT
“The court understands that, in issuing this order, it does so in a proverbial new frontier as society begins to grapple with both the power and potential danger of this technology,” Hall wrote at the time.”
courant.com ↗
The file →
  • Cojom v. Roblen involved attorney Stich.
  • Attorney Stich submitted 3 hallucinated case citations against a pro se opponent.
  • The court imposed a $500 monetary sanction on the lawyer.
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
  • Issued November 17, 2025; court noted AI imperils judicial integrity.
Filing dismissed ChatGPT 2025-11-14
A pro se filer used AI-generated citations in a bankruptcy filing; the court sanctioned her by dismissing the case without prejudice.
In re Cathleen Siebrecht · Cathleen Siebrecht · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia · VA
““The ‘AI-generated citations’ in the filing were ‘hallucinated’ and not supported by the law.””

Cases that don't exist

  • In re Zepeda, 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 1234
  • In re Jones, 2024 WL 1234567
calawyers.org ↗
The file →
  • In re Cathleen Siebrecht involved Cathleen Siebrecht, who filed a bankruptcy paper with AI-generated citations.
  • The filing contained hallucinated legal citations and the court found they were unsupported by law.
  • The court dismissed the case without prejudice.
  • It was in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
  • The order was entered on 2025-11-14, and the page says the citations were ChatGPT-generated.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-11-13
A law firm inadvertently filed a brief with two AI-generated fake citations, then promptly acknowledged the error and took remedial actions that satisfied the court.
Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Peacock · Buchalter · U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · OR
“one cited case was “totally fake” and another was “almost real” because there is a case with the name, but it is a state case instead of a federal case as indicated.”
reuters.com ↗
The file →
  • Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Peacock; a law firm was involved
  • The firm filed a brief containing two AI-generated fake citations
  • The court did not impose sanctions after the firm acknowledged the mistake and remedied it
  • U.S. District Court for Oregon
  • Nov. 12, 2025; the court found the firm’s forthright response sufficient
Warned 2025-11-13
Parties filed AI-generated cost submissions with fake cases and bad hyperlinks, and the court ordered them to address the misuse.
X.L. v. Z.L. · Ontario Superior Court of Justice · ON

Cases that don't exist

  • Bank of Montreal v. Wilder, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 118
  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP v. Shorter, 2011 ONSC 5840
  • Ontario Inc. v. Ranch Heating and Air conditioning (Barrie) Limited, 2012 ONSC 182
grllp.com ↗
The file →
  • X.L. v. Z.L. involved respondents S and Y, and maybe Z.L.
  • Their submissions used AI and cited fake cases or hyperlinks that did not support the propositions.
  • The court ordered them to address the AI-generated submissions; the article says cost sanctions were still awaited.
  • Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario.
  • November 13, 2025; the practice directions say AI misuse can lead to reprimand, costs, fines, dismissal, and referral.
Reprimanded Gemini 2025-11-12
A Dubai-based lawyer cited two non-existent QFC cases in submissions, and the QFC Court found him in contempt but imposed no penal sanction.
Jonathan David Sheppard v Jillion LLC · A Dubai-based lawyer · Qatar International Court (QFC Court)
“It was inconceivable for any lawyer not to verify the case law citations produced by an AI tool with the actual body of case law published by the QFC Court.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Al Khor International School v. Gulf Contracting Co. (QFC 2022)
  • Doha Bank v. KPMG (QFC App 2019)
qatarlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Jonathan David Sheppard v Jillion LLC; a Dubai-based lawyer
  • He relied on AI research and cited two non-existent QFC cases
  • The court found contempt but imposed no penal sanction
  • Qatar International Court (QFC Court), Qatar
  • 2025-11-12; the court said lawyers must verify AI-produced citations

Showing 661–670 of 857.

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