legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
151
Incidents tracked
26
Incidents in 2026
$542,786
In fines, where reported
50 of 151 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 60 of 151 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

Counts only incidents where the filing court or the reporting named the tool.

Showing 61–70 of 151 incidents involving ChatGPT. Clear filters

Fined $6K ChatGPT
The California Supreme Court declined to reconsider a $6,000 sanction leveled against Lipeles Law Group for its misuse of generative artificial intelligence.
Lipeles Law Group sanctions appeal · Lipeles Law Group · California Supreme Court · CA
“the worst example of misconduct by a lawyer that I think I’ve ever seen since I’ve been on the bench.”
law.com ↗
The file →
  • Lipeles Law Group was sanctioned for AI misuse.
  • The firm misused generative artificial intelligence in its court filings.
  • The court imposed a $6,000 monetary sanction.
  • The matter was handled by the California Supreme Court.
  • The California Supreme Court declined to reconsider the penalty in September 2026.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Farah Chalisa said she used ChatGPT for stylistic and grammatical review, and the court discussed the resulting AI-related citation problem.
Salah v. Walmart Inc. · Farah Chalisa · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
media.ca7.uscourts.gov ↗
The file →
  • Salah v. Walmart Inc.; Farah Chalisa
  • Chalisa said she used ChatGPT for stylistic and grammatical review
  • The page does not state any sanction or amount for this order
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  • The page names ChatGPT and says Chalisa did not enter an appearance
Reprimanded ChatGPT
Forrister submitted AI-fabricated citations in a filing and faced discipline from the Texas Supreme Court.
In re: The State Bar of Texas v. Christopher W. Forrister · Christopher W. Forrister · Supreme Court of Texas · TX
caseread.ai ↗
The file →
  • Christopher W. Forrister was disciplined for AI-fabricated citations.
  • He filed a document that included fake citations generated by AI.
  • The Texas Supreme Court issued a reprimand.
  • The court was the Supreme Court of Texas.
  • The page names ChatGPT as the AI tool but gives no order date.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Michael Best was cited as an example of a lawyer or firm facing sanction risk for submitting AI-generated filings with fabricated citations.
Michael Best · Michael Best
lexology.com ↗
The file →
  • Michael Best was named on the page as a real incident reference.
  • The page says it involved AI-generated filings with fabricated citations.
  • No specific sanction amount or order is stated on the page.
  • No court, judge, or location is identified on the page.
  • The page links the problem to ChatGPT and fabricated legal guidance.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A Denver attorney accepted a 90-day suspension after an investigation found he used ChatGPT to help draft a motion containing fabrications.
Unnamed Colorado disciplinary case · Denver attorney · Colorado Supreme Court · CO
“like an idiot”
cronkitenews.azpbs.org ↗
The file →
  • Unnamed Colorado disciplinary case; a Denver attorney was sanctioned.
  • The attorney denied using AI, but the investigation found ChatGPT helped draft a motion with fabrications.
  • He received a 90-day suspension.
  • Colorado Supreme Court; Colorado.
  • The article gives no date beyond saying the case was recent; it quotes the attorney saying he hadn’t checked the work.
Fined $10K ChatGPT
An attorney filed a state court appeal with 21 of 23 quoted citations hallucinated by ChatGPT and was fined $10,000.
California court appeal matter · California court · CA
nbcnews.com ↗
The file →
  • An unnamed attorney in California was fined.
  • The attorney filed a state court appeal with 21 of 23 quotes hallucinated by ChatGPT.
  • The court imposed a $10,000 fine.
  • California court; state jurisdiction; location not further specified on the page.
  • The article calls it possibly the largest-ever fine over AI fabrications.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Takefman cited the nonexistent case Hernandez v. Gilbert in two filings, but the court accepted his apology and did not sanction him.
Takefman matter · Earl Takefman · court not named on page · FL

Cases that don't exist

  • Hernandez v. Gilbert
nbcnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Earl Takefman was the pro se litigant in a Florida matter.
  • He used ChatGPT and cited the imaginary case Hernandez v. Gilbert in two filings.
  • The court forced him to explain why he should not be sanctioned, then imposed none.
  • Florida; court not named on the page; state jurisdiction.
  • The page says the judge admonished him and later accepted his apology.
Fined $10K ChatGPT
An appeals court in California fined a lawyer $10,000 after nearly all quotations in the briefs were fabricated with AI tools.
In re: OpenAI, Inc. ChatGPT Litigation · California Court of Appeal · CA
““as a warning””
404media.co ↗
The file →
  • An unnamed lawyer was sanctioned in a California appeal.
  • The lawyer filed briefs with nearly all legal quotations fabricated through AI tools.
  • The court imposed a record $10,000 fine.
  • California Court of Appeal, California.
  • The page says the lawyer used ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Grok; the date is only given as earlier this month.
Fined ChatGPT
An attorney and his firm were fined after filing bankruptcy arguments containing four misrepresented or fictitious matters.
Bankruptcy proceedings matter · United States Bankruptcy Court
heplerbroom.com ↗
The file →
  • An attorney and his firm were sanctioned in bankruptcy proceedings.
  • Their filing cited four misrepresented or fictitious matters.
  • The court fined both the attorney and the firm.
  • United States Bankruptcy Court; the article gives no judge name.
  • The attorney admitted using ChatGPT and not verifying the citations before filing.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.