legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
98
Incidents tracked
30
Incidents in 2026
$386,941
In fines, where reported
14 of 98 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 57 of 98 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 17 Claude 2 CoCounsel 2 LEAP 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 ChatGPT-4 1 Copilot 1 GPT-3.5 1 Gemini 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 98 incidents. Clear filters

Referred to the bar 2026-01-22
A lawyer relied on AI to submit false quotes and overturned case law, resulting in CLE requirements, a bar referral, and an order to serve the opinion on the client.
Tolbert v. State · CA Georgia · GA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Tolbert v. State
  • Lawyer submitted false quotes, misrepresented case law, and cited overturned authority.
  • Referred to State Bar, ordered to complete CLE, and serve opinion on client.
  • Court of Appeals of Georgia (GA, USA)
  • Decided January 22, 2026; AI tool was implied.
Referred to the bar 2026-01-01
Clearpoint allegedly drafted foreclosure filings with hallucinated citations and the court referred the matter to Arizona regulators instead of making findings.
Pearl Gardner v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · Clearpoint · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · AZ
“The Court stated that the complaint and motions filed in the case bore multiple “hallmarks of AI,” including unusual structure, fabricated citations, and misinterpretations of existing law.”
triallawyersjournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Pearl Gardner v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC involved Clearpoint's foreclosure filings.
  • Clearpoint allegedly used undisclosed AI and included nonexistent legal authorities.
  • The court did not impose a monetary sanction; it referred the matter for investigation.
  • United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Arizona.
  • January 2026 order; the court said the filings bore multiple 'hallmarks of AI.'
Referred to the bar 2025-12-10
Sara Evelyn McLane filed an answer brief with three inaccurate AI-generated citations and was referred to The Florida Bar for possible sanctions.
Russell v. Mells · Sara Evelyn McLane · Florida Second District Court of Appeal · FL
“To state the obvious, it is a fundamental duty of attorneys to read the legal authorities they cite in appellate briefs or any other court filings to determine that the authorities stand for the propositions for which they are cited.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Cade v. Roberts
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Russell v. Mells involved attorney Sara Evelyn McLane.
  • She filed an answer brief with inaccurate computer-generated citations, including one nonexistent case.
  • The court referred her to The Florida Bar; no monetary sanction was imposed in the article.
  • Florida Second District Court of Appeal in Florida.
  • Dec. 10, 2025; Chief Judge Matthew C. Lucas said counsel must personally execute the written response.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-12-04
Jisuh Lee filed a factum with hallucinated case law and allegedly lied about using ChatGPT; the court referred the matter for criminal contempt proceedings.
Ko v. Li · Jisuh Lee of ML Lawyers · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
““This is a very unusual case and one that may resonate throughout the administration of justice.””
regulayer.com ↗
The file →
  • Ko v. Li involved Jisuh Lee of ML Lawyers in an estate matter.
  • She filed a factum containing AI-hallucinated case law and later admitted using ChatGPT.
  • The court referred the contempt matter to Ontario’s attorney general; no amount was ordered.
  • Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada.
  • Dec. 4 order; Justice Frederick Myers said it was a very unusual case.
Referred to the bar 2025-11-28
The court disqualified the defense attorney and referred her to the Bar Association after a brief with fabricated case law and misrepresented precedents, likely from unverified AI use.
Elías Axel Roberto Rafael s/ Abuso sexual con acceso carnal · CSJ de Tucumán
“No puede soslayarse, como hecho de gravedad institucional, que la defensa técnica del imputado - en el momento procesal que constituye la última instancia de revisión extraordinaria local- haya presentado un escrito elaborado posiblemente mediante el uso de herramientas de inteligencia artificial, u obtenidos a través de medios no confiables y fidedignos sin ejercer el más mínimo control sobre la veracidad de las citas jurisprudenciales, la autenticidad de las fuentes invocadas ni la coherencia dogmática de los fundamentos empleados.La conducta descripta trasciende el mero error material o descuido profesional: configura un supuesto de negligencia grave incompatible con los deberes de probidad, lealtad y diligencia que rigen la funcióndel abogado defensor.La defensa penal no puede convertirse en unespacio de experimentación de medios y/o tecnologías de manera irresponsable que - aunque de utilidad potencial - requieren un manejo prudente, crítico y siempre supervisado por el criterio humano. El ejercicio de la defensa en juicio, protegido por el art. 18 de la Constitución Nacional y por los instrumentos internacionales con jerarquía constitucional, exige una intervención personal, reflexiva y fundada de quien ejerce la representación técnica. El uso automático y acrítico de un asistente artificial, o la utilización de fuentes con procedencia desconocida para producir un escrito en la instancia recursiva vulnera no solo el deber de diligencia, sino también el derecho del imputado a una defensa real y efectiva.”
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Elías Axel Roberto Rafael s/ Abuso sexual con acceso carnal; defense attorney
  • Filed a brief with fabricated case law and misrepresented precedents
  • Attorney disqualified and referred to the Bar Association; no amount stated
  • CSJ de Tucumán, Argentina
  • 2025-11-28; court inferred possible AI use from the errors
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-11-27
A barrister used ChatGPT to draft appeal grounds with a false citation and the tribunal reported him to the Bar Standards Board but did not start contempt proceedings.
MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
barcouncil.org.uk ↗
The file →
  • MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a barrister before the Upper Tribunal.
  • He included a false citation and later used ChatGPT to draft the grounds of appeal.
  • The tribunal referred him to the Bar Standards Board but did not initiate contempt proceedings.
  • Court: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), Bangladesh; [2025] UKUT 305 (IAC).
  • Date: 2025-11-27; he did not use Westlaw or Lexis Nexis to check the work.
Referred to the bar $250 ChatGPT-4 2025-11-20
Plaintiff’s counsel filed a settlement-approval motion with AI-generated fake citations, and the court struck it, fined counsel, and referred him for discipline.
Buchanan v. Vuori, Inc. · James Dal Bon · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
“the rise in non-existent cases and quotations hallucinated by artificial intelligence tools”
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Buchanan v. Vuori, Inc.; plaintiff’s counsel was sanctioned
  • A settlement-approval motion contained 8 false quotations and one nonexistent case from AI
  • Court ordered a $250 payment, struck the motions, and referred counsel to the Standing Committee
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, California
  • Nov. 20, 2025; counsel used about six different AI tools and the court found Rule 11 and candor violations
Referred to the bar 2025-11-19
An attorney was referred to the bar association and had his brief partially struck after submitting AI-fabricated legal authority.
Nº 1.0000.25.200097-1/001 (Antônio Carlos Vieira Barbosa) · Antônio Carlos Vieira Barbosa · TJ Minas Gerais
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Case involved attorney Antônio Carlos Vieira Barbosa in Brazil.
  • The lawyer submitted a fake case citation and a fake doctrinal work.
  • The court referred the lawyer to the Bar and partially struck the brief.
  • Decided by Tribunal de Justiça de Minas Gerais (TJMG) in Brazil.
  • Issued November 19, 2025; implied AI hallucination.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.