legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
199
Incidents tracked
40
Incidents in 2026
$11,578
In fines, where reported
3 of 199 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 75 of 199 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 32 Gemini 4 Claude 2 Perplexity AI 2 AI Overviews 1 ChatGPT-4o 1 ChatOn 1 Eve 1 Grammarly 1 MX2.law 1 OpenCase 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

Showing 61–70 of 199 incidents. Clear filters

Caught, not sanctioned
A Massachusetts lawyer was sanctioned for filing AI-generated fictitious case citations.
Massachusetts Lawyer Sanctioned for AI-Generated Fictitious Case Citations · Massachusetts state court · MA
amerisurv.com ↗
The file →
  • The page cites a Massachusetts lawyer sanctioned for AI-generated fictitious case citations.
  • The lawyer filed fictitious citations created by AI.
  • The article gives no sanction amount or named judge.
  • Massachusetts state court, Massachusetts.
  • No date or tool name is given on the page.
Caught, not sanctioned
An Alabama Supreme Court sanction targeted an attorney whose briefs cited nonexistent cases, and the court noted he repeated a fabricated citation after being warned.
unavailable · Alabama Supreme Court · AL
toppeconsulting.com ↗
The file →
  • An attorney before the Alabama Supreme Court was sanctioned.
  • His briefs contained citations to cases that did not exist.
  • The page does not state the sanction amount.
  • The court was the Alabama Supreme Court in Alabama.
  • The opinion noted he repeated a fake citation after being told about one.
Caught, not sanctioned
Defendants said plaintiff's attorneys cited six cases that appeared to be fabricated legal citations, but the page does not state any sanction order.
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD
govinfo.gov ↗
The file →
  • Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD involved plaintiff's attorneys.
  • Defendants identified six cited cases that appeared fabricated.
  • The page does not report any sanction imposed.
  • Federal case in an unspecified court.
  • The page gives no date, AI tool, judge quote, or citation strings.
Caught, not sanctioned $2K
A lawyer submitted case citations from a generative AI program in filings to a federal district court without checking their accuracy, and the lawyer was sanctioned.
unidentified lawyer · federal district court
reuters.com ↗
The file →
  • An unnamed lawyer was sanctioned.
  • The lawyer filed citations generated by a generative AI program without checking them.
  • The court imposed a sanction, but the page gives no type or amount.
  • The matter was in federal district court.
  • The page gives no date or AI product name.
Caught, not sanctioned
An expert filed court declarations with AI-hallucinated citations and narrowly avoided sanction, but the page gives no order details.
Stanford Internet Observatory matter · an expert from the Stanford Internet Observatory
“The irony.”
ipwatchdog.com ↗
The file →
  • Stanford Internet Observatory matter and an unnamed expert
  • The expert submitted court declarations containing AI-hallucinated citations
  • No sanction amount or formal sanction is described on the page
  • Court and judge are not named on the page
  • The page quotes the judge's written opinion as 'The irony.'
Caught, not sanctioned
A lawyer filed a brief containing AI-generated issues and case law, and the court addressed the problem in a costs ruling.
Re Gary Man Kin Ng · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Re Gary Man Kin Ng involved a brief containing AI-generated material.
  • The page says the court grappled with issues arising from the lawyer's brief.
  • It does not state a monetary sanction or other sanction imposed.
  • The court was the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
  • The page gives no date, named attorney, or named AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
In a Quebec Superior Court fraud judgment, the ruling allegedly used AI and cited nonexistent cases and testimony, and the defendants appealed.
Jocelyn Geoffroy decision (Quebec commercial fraud case) · Quebec Superior Court
theglobeandmail.com ↗
The file →
  • Quebec Superior Court commercial fraud case involving Justice Jocelyn Geoffroy's decision
  • Defendants alleged the ruling contained AI hallmarks, including citations to cases that do not exist
  • No sanction is reported on the page; it describes an appeal and possible retrial
  • Quebec Superior Court, Quebec, Canada
  • Published 2026-03-30; the article says the allegation of AI use has not been confirmed
Caught, not sanctioned
Thomas Gregory Sylvester filed a brief with AI-fabricated legal citations, and the Fifth Circuit discussed the incident and reaffirmed existing rules govern AI misuse.
In re: Thomas Gregory Sylvester · Thomas Gregory Sylvester · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
jdsupra.com ↗
The file →
  • In re: Thomas Gregory Sylvester; Thomas Gregory Sylvester
  • He filed a brief containing AI-fabricated legal citations
  • No sanction amount is stated; the court said existing rules already govern AI misuse
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
  • The article says the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed no bespoke AI rule is needed
Caught, not sanctioned
A Victorian judge probed Ahmed Dib’s firm after a solicitor filed documents with made-up quotes, non-existent cases and apparent AI hallucinations.
Ahmed Dib’s firm probe · Ahmed Dib · Victorian judge · VIC
afr.com ↗
The file →
  • Ahmed Dib’s firm was probed over the filing.
  • A solicitor allegedly laid documents before the court with made-up quotes and non-existent cases.
  • The article reports a judicial probe, not a stated sanction.
  • The court was in Victoria, Australia.
  • Published Mar. 22, 2026; the piece says the documents showed extensive artificial intelligence hallucinations.
Caught, not sanctioned
Counsel for consumers said a generative AI tool added a hallucinated citation to a brief, which a Boies Schiller associate missed while checking citations.
Amazon supplement labeling lawsuit · Boies Schiller · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · WA
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Amazon supplement labeling lawsuit against Amazon.com Inc.; Boies Schiller was involved.
  • A generative AI tool used to 'harmonize' drafts introduced an AI-hallucinated citation.
  • No sanction is stated on the page; the issue was being explained to the court.
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
  • March 19, 2026 article; a fifth-year Boies Schiller associate missed the error.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.