legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

Every incident where a lawyer got caught filing AI-fabricated citations. The Hall of Shame.

Embed this
851
Incidents tracked
262
Incidents in 2026
$2,417,608
In fines, where reported
214 of 851 report an amount

The curve

Incidents per month

Last 18 months of published incidents, by the date of the court's order.

Apr 2025 Sep 2026

Charting 446 of 851 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 151 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 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 251 Caught, not sanctioned 199 Warned 126 Referred to the bar 98 Reprimanded 85 Outcome unclear 53 Filing dismissed 36 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
Fined
The court denied an appeal and imposed a 2% fine for bad faith litigation after the party submitted fictitious AI-generated STJ and STF citations.
Civil Appeal no 5002055-65.2023.8.13.0074 · 4th Specialized Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais (TJMG)
jurinews.com.br ↗
The file →
  • Civil Appeal no 5002055-65.2023.8.13.0074 involved a party submitting AI-fabricated precedents.
  • The party cited fictitious rulings attributed to the STJ and STF without human review.
  • The court imposed a 2% fine on the value of the cause and issued referrals to the OAB/MG and Prosecutor's Office.
  • The decision was rendered by the 4th Specialized Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais (TJMG).
  • Appellate Judge Roberto Apolinário de Castro rejected claims of a 'technical lapse' and noted the reckless use of AI.
Referred to the bar
The NLRB referred attorney Cynthia Sauter to an agency investigator for discipline after she submitted a filing containing fake legal citations.
Cynthia Sauter · Cynthia Sauter · National Labor Relations Board
“Sauter also cites to Board decisions that do not stand for the propositions for which they are cited and, most egregiously, to two purported Board decisions that do not exist at all,”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Cynthia Sauter of Burdzinski & Partners Inc. was referred for discipline.
  • She submitted a filing containing nonexistent legal citations and transcript references.
  • The NLRB referred her to an agency investigator for possible discipline.
  • The decision was issued by the National Labor Relations Board.
  • The ruling noted Sauter cited two purported Board decisions that do not exist at all.
Outcome unclear
A California appeals court appointed a judge to investigate potential sanctions against prosecutors for filing court documents containing generative AI errors in four criminal cases.
In re Nevada County District Attorney's Office · Madison Maxwell · California Court of Appeal · CA
legaltech.fyi ↗
The file →
  • Former Nevada County prosecutor Madison Maxwell faces potential sanctions for using AI to draft court documents.
  • Maxwell submitted filings containing falsehoods and nonexistent case citations in multiple criminal matters.
  • A California appeals court appointed a judge to investigate whether to issue sanctions against the district attorney's office.
  • The proceedings were initiated in California state court following a directive from the California Supreme Court.
  • Maxwell stated in a declaration that she did not realize generative AI models could insert citations for nonexistent cases.
Fined $15K
The Third Circuit sanctioned an employee's lawyer $14,636.50 for filing a motion containing AI-generated misquotations that he failed to verify.
Hileman v. [Truncated] · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
“The disability-discrimination and medical leave laws are shields against discrimination, not get-out-of-discipline-free cards.”
legaltech.fyi ↗
The file →
  • Hileman v. [Truncated] involving an unnamed lawyer for the plaintiff
  • Filing a motion containing unverified AI-generated misquotations
  • Monetary fine sanction of $14,636.50
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  • Opinion authored by Judge Stephanos Bibas framing disability laws as shields, not discipline-free cards
Outcome unclear
The court described the appellant's arguments as supported by fictitious cases generated from the hallucinations of artificial intelligence.
Petsinger v. Steele County Recorder's Office · Minnesota Court of Appeals · MN
“fictitious cases generated from the hallucinations of artificial intelligence.”
legaltech.fyi ↗
The file →
  • Petsinger v. Steele County Recorder's Office involving an unnamed appellant
  • Appellant submitted fictitious cases generated from AI hallucinations
  • Court identified the AI-hallucinated caselaw in its opinion
  • Minnesota Court of Appeals in Minnesota
  • Undated nonprecedential opinion addressing unverified AI authority
Warned
The court warned that many citations in the brief either did not exist or did not support the legal argument, and inaccurately quoted statutes and the record.
Young v. Young · Minnesota Court of Appeals · MN
“we emphasize that hallucinated caselaw is not valid authority and that all parties should be mindful of the importance of accuracy in their submissions”
legaltech.fyi ↗
The file →
  • Young v. Young involving unverified party submissions
  • Brief contained nonexistent citations, inaccurate statutory quotes, and record misstatements
  • Court issued a warning emphasizing accuracy and that hallucinated caselaw is invalid
  • Minnesota Court of Appeals in Minnesota
  • Undated opinion acknowledging AI's utility but warning against unverified filings
Fined $8K 2026-08-28
The court ordered $8,000 in monetary sanctions and mandatory CLE after a lawyer filed briefs containing fabricated and misrepresented case law.
Erin Booker v. The Kroger Co. · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · GA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Erin Booker v. The Kroger Co. involved a lawyer who submitted fabricated and misrepresented case law.
  • Counsel submitted court filings containing fabricated and misrepresented case law from an unidentified AI tool.
  • The court imposed monetary sanctions of $8,000 and ordered CLE.
  • The matter was decided in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
  • The order imposing sanctions was issued on August 28, 2026.
Referred to the bar 2026-08-27
The court denied Rule 11 sanctions on procedural grounds but recommended referring signing attorneys to a disciplinary committee for filing fabricated AI exhibits.
Thomas Raynard James v. Detective Kevin Conley, et al. · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · FL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Thomas Raynard James v. Detective Kevin Conley, et al. involved plaintiff's counsel submitting unverified AI hallucinations.
  • Counsel included unverified IACP Training Keys in the Fifth Amended Complaint generated by AI.
  • Rule 11 sanctions were denied on procedural grounds, but the signing attorneys were referred for disciplinary review.
  • The decision was issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
  • The ruling was entered on August 27, 2026, finding counsel's reliance on unverified AI irresponsible.
Fined $1K 2026-08-27
The court admonished a lawyer and imposed a $1,000 fine for submitting filings containing fabricated case law and false quotes.
Adams v. Matrix Providers Inc. et al. · U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado · CO
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Adams v. Matrix Providers Inc. et al. involved a lawyer submitting AI-hallucinated case law and quotes.
  • The lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law and false quotes generated by AI.
  • The court issued an admonishment and a $1,000 monetary fine.
  • The case was adjudicated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
  • The order was entered on August 27, 2026.
Reprimanded 2026-08-27
The court admonished a lawyer and deemed the appellate issue waived after the attorney submitted a brief containing a fabricated case citation.
Paige Kiser & Ty Kiser v. DeSimone Auto Group et al. · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · PA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Paige Kiser & Ty Kiser v. DeSimone Auto Group et al. involved a lawyer filing an AI-fabricated citation.
  • Counsel submitted an appellate filing containing a fabricated case citation.
  • The court issued an admonishment and deemed the issue waived or underdeveloped for appeal.
  • The case was before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
  • The court issued its decision on August 27, 2026.

Showing 61–70 of 851.

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