legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
251
Incidents tracked
81
Incidents in 2026
$1,813,310
In fines, where reported
186 of 251 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 139 of 251 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 53 Claude 4 Lexis+ AI 4 Westlaw Precision 4 CoCounsel 3 Copilot 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 Archie 1 ChatOn 1 ClearBrief 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 Gemini 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google AI 1 Google Scholar 1 Grok 1 Irys 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 125 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 56 Filing dismissed 37 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1

Showing 61–70 of 251 incidents. Clear filters

Fined ChatGPT
Steven A. Schwartz filed a brief with AI-fabricated cases and quotations, and the court sanctioned the filing.
In re Schwartz · Steven A. Schwartz · federal court
prinz-lawfirm.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Schwartz involved Steven A. Schwartz and AI-fabricated citations.
  • He submitted a brief with made-up cases and quotations.
  • The court sanctioned the filing with a monetary fine.
  • The page says courts in Wyoming, California, Texas, and Pennsylvania have sanctioned similar conduct.
  • It identifies ChatGPT as one of the AI tools that can hallucinate citations.
Fined $66K
Arnold Porter won a ruling for more than $66,000 in attorneys’ fees after the plaintiff filed duplicative motions and fake case citations using AI.
ICANN and Verisign Inc. v. [Chinese plaintiff] · Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“bad faith”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer obtained the fee award in the ICANN/Verisign dispute.
  • The plaintiff repeatedly filed AI-generated fake case citations and duplicative motions.
  • The court awarded more than $66,000 in attorneys’ fees.
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, California.
  • December; the judge said the plaintiff kept filing fake citations even after apologizing.
Fined $1K
The Tenth Circuit fined a Maryland attorney $1,000 and referred the matter after a brief cited nonexistent cases generated with AI.
Maryland attorney referred to disciplinary authorities by the Tenth Circuit · US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
carry.com ↗
The file →
  • A Maryland attorney was sanctioned by the Tenth Circuit.
  • She acknowledged using generative AI to prepare a brief with nonexistent cases.
  • The court imposed a $1,000 fine and referred the matter to disciplinary authorities.
  • US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, federal.
  • March 23, 2026 article; the page does not name the AI tool used.
Fined
The self-represented respondent used generative AI in her written argument and cited non-existent cases; the court awarded a small costs award to the claimant.
J.R.V. v. N.L.V. · British Columbia Supreme Court
watsongoepel.com ↗
The file →
  • J.R.V. v. N.L.V. involved a self-represented respondent.
  • She used generative AI to prepare her written argument.
  • It produced citations to non-existent cases.
  • The court made a small costs award payable to the claimant.
  • 2025 BCSC 1137; the respondent apologized and said she did not know AI could generate fake citations.
Fined $2K
An attorney filed a brief citing multiple non-existent cases, and the court imposed a $2,500 sanction.
Texas AI hallucination case · Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas · TX
“violated basic duties of competence and candor as contemplated by the rules governing professional conduct.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Texas AI hallucination case involving an unnamed attorney
  • The lawyer filed a brief with multiple non-existent cases
  • The court imposed a $2,500 sanction
  • Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, Texas
  • The article says the judge found violations of competence and candor
Fined
Nicholas L. Palazzo filed briefs with erroneous and apparently fabricated citations, and the Pennsylvania federal court sanctioned him.
Patricia Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. and BJ’s Wholesale Club · Nicholas L. Palazzo of Defino Law Associates · PA
legal.io ↗
The file →
  • Patricia Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. and BJ’s Wholesale Club
  • Nicholas L. Palazzo submitted briefs with erroneous and apparently fabricated citations
  • The court sanctioned him
  • Pennsylvania federal court
  • The page says the cited cases either did not exist or had major factual errors
Fined $10K
A self-represented plaintiff filed briefs generated using AI with fictitious cases, quotes, and law, and Judge Virginia Kendall struck the motion and sanctioned her $5,000.
Ifeoma Delliane Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois, et al. · Chinedu Obi · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · IL
“Plaintiff’s motion is riddled with AI hallucinations, made up cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006)
  • Andrade v. Arby Concessions, 88 F.4th 1014, 1018 (7th Cir. 2023)
fedcivilprocedure.com ↗
The file →
  • Chinedu Obi in Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois
  • He generated each brief using AI and filed hallucinated cases, quotes, and legal statements
  • Rule 11 sanctions totaling $9,750
  • Northern District of Illinois, federal court in Illinois
  • The court said the filings contained repeated, ongoing hallucinations and wasted time locating nonexistent cases
Fined
A claimant filed a petition with nonexistent precedents allegedly generated by AI, and the Supreme Federal Court found bad faith and ordered double court fees plus referral to the bar.
Supreme Federal Court Claim No 78,890 · Supreme Federal Court
ibanet.org ↗
The file →
  • Supreme Federal Court Claim No 78,890 involved a claimant whose petition cited nonexistent precedents.
  • The petition was found to contain AI-generated nonexistent precedents.
  • The court ordered double court fees and reported the matter to the Brazilian Bar Association.
  • Supreme Federal Court, Brazil.
  • The page says the improper use of AI in court by inventing binding precedents was bad faith.
Fined $2K CoCounsel
The Fifth Circuit sanctioned an Arkansas lawyer for filing an AI-generated brief with 21 fictional case citations and other errors.
Arkansas lawyer sanctioned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
bestlawfirms.com ↗
The file →
  • An Arkansas lawyer was sanctioned by the Fifth Circuit.
  • The lawyer filed an AI-generated brief containing 21 fictional case citations and other errors.
  • The sanction type was monetary fine, but the page gives no amount.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; federal appellate court.
  • No incident date is given; the page quotes the court on law-and-technology concerns.
Fined
A federal judge fined Lenden Webb for failing to supervise another lawyer at his firm who filed court papers containing AI-fabricated citations.
Lenden Webb · Lenden Webb · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Lenden Webb was sanctioned.
  • Another lawyer at Webb’s firm filed papers with AI-fabricated citations.
  • Webb was fined for failing to supervise that lawyer.
  • The case was in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
  • The article says the underlying filing contained fabricated citations, but it does not name the AI tool or the amount.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.