legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
86
Incidents tracked
30
Incidents in 2026
$86,945
In fines, where reported
5 of 86 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 49 of 86 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 13 CoCounsel 1 Eve 1 Gemini 1 Lexis+ AI 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 86 incidents. Clear filters

Reprimanded 2026-01-14
Celebrezze filed a disciplinary matter with AI-fabricated legal citations, and the Supreme Court of Ohio sanctioned him.
Disciplinary Counsel v. Celebrezze · Celebrezze · Supreme Court of Ohio · OH
supremecourt.ohio.gov ↗
The file →
  • Disciplinary Counsel v. Celebrezze involved Celebrezze.
  • He submitted a disciplinary filing with AI-fabricated legal citations.
  • The court imposed a reprimand.
  • The sanction came from the Supreme Court of Ohio in Ohio.
  • The order is dated 2026-01-14 and the page excerpt does not name an AI tool.
Reprimanded 2025-12-12
In an injunction proceeding, the judge suspected an appeal brief was drafted using AI and admonished the lawyer after declaring the appeal void.
La IA también alucina con leyes · Court in the Argentine province of Salta
“She admonished the lawyer, stating that while the use of Artificial Intelligence is not prohibited, the lawyer remains fully responsible for the content.”
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
  • La IA también alucina con leyes; the lawyer
  • A brief in an injunction proceeding contained serious inconsistencies and was suspected to be AI-drafted
  • The judge admonished the lawyer and declared the appeal void
  • Salta, Argentina
  • 2025-12-12; the appeal was declared desierta
Reprimanded ChatGPT 2025-11-21
Gordon Rees submitted filings with hallucinated AI citations; Judge Christopher L. Hawkins declined to sanction the firm but reprimanded former lawyer Cassie D. Preston.
In re Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc., et al. · Gordon Rees; Cassie Preston · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama · AL
“attorneys must not allow their personal feelings to cloud their professional judgment, and Ms. Preston crossed a line when she resorted to making use of arguments and authorities generated by artificial intelligence”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Jackson Hosp. & Clinic Inc. and Cassie Preston were sanctioned in bankruptcy court.
  • She submitted filings with artificial-intelligence generated fake citations.
  • The court publicly reprimanded her and ordered disclosure/compliance steps, with no monetary amount stated.
  • US Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama; Judge Christopher L. Hawkins.
  • Order dated 2025-11-21; the opinion also found misleading and fabricated citations.
Reprimanded 2025-11-20
A lawyer received an admonition after submitting a hallucinated Federal Court of Justice citation built from incorrect filing numbers.
KG Berlin, 17 WF 144/25 · KG Berlin
llms-for-lawyers.com ↗
The file →
  • KG Berlin, 17 WF 144/25 involving a German attorney.
  • Lawyer submitted a fake BGH citation combining real journal pages with an invented case number.
  • Received an official judicial admonition (Ermahnung).
  • Kammergericht Berlin (Germany).
  • Dated November 20, 2025; court cited use of a hallucinating AI tool.
Reprimanded Gemini 2025-11-12
A Dubai-based lawyer cited two non-existent QFC cases in submissions, and the QFC Court found him in contempt but imposed no penal sanction.
Jonathan David Sheppard v Jillion LLC · A Dubai-based lawyer · Qatar International Court (QFC Court)
“It was inconceivable for any lawyer not to verify the case law citations produced by an AI tool with the actual body of case law published by the QFC Court.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Al Khor International School v. Gulf Contracting Co. (QFC 2022)
  • Doha Bank v. KPMG (QFC App 2019)
qatarlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Jonathan David Sheppard v Jillion LLC; a Dubai-based lawyer
  • He relied on AI research and cited two non-existent QFC cases
  • The court found contempt but imposed no penal sanction
  • Qatar International Court (QFC Court), Qatar
  • 2025-11-12; the court said lawyers must verify AI-produced citations
Reprimanded 2025-11-01
An attorney filed AI-written family-law papers with fake citations; the Kammergericht Berlin reprimanded the lawyer for not reviewing them.
Invented Case Law Citations in Attorney’s Court Filing · Kammergericht Berlin
“As lawyers, they are “obligated” to do so, the court wrote.”
posteo.de ↗
The file →
  • Family-law appeal by a mother seeking custody and court-cost assistance.
  • Attorney filed court documents with citations the court found were obviously written with AI.
  • Kammergericht Berlin reprimanded the attorney.
  • Highest court in Berlin; ruling on a published family-law matter.
  • Decision made in November of the prior year; court said the filing was 'obviously written with the help of AI.'
Reprimanded $150 2025-10-01
Cathleen Jane Siebrecht filed a brief with hallucinated case citations, and the Iowa Court of Appeals imposed a public reprimand and $150 penalty.
In re Cathleen Jane Siebrecht · Cathleen Jane Siebrecht · Iowa Court of Appeals · IA
““The Iowa Court of Appeals discovered that two cases you cited were entirely hallucinated and at other points the brief incorrectly characterized the language or holding of the source cited,””
yahoo.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Cathleen Jane Siebrecht; attorney Cathleen Jane Siebrecht of Pleasant Hill
  • She filed a brief in a 2025 termination-of-parent-rights appeal using AI and false case citations
  • Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board issued a public reprimand; court imposed a $150 penalty
  • Iowa Court of Appeals, Iowa
  • October 2025; court said two cited cases were “entirely hallucinated” and required ethics training in lieu of payment
Reprimanded 2025-09-25
A plaintiff's lawyer quoted non-existent BGH decisions; the Frankfurt court condemned inventing citations and using chatbot-suggested sources.
LG Frankfurt, 2-13 S 56/24 · LG Frankfurt
“it is “among the fundamental obligations of the legal profession neither to invent citations nor to include unverified sources suggested by a chatbot in a court filing.””
posteo.de ↗
The file →
  • LG Frankfurt, 2-13 S 56/24 involving a German lawyer.
  • Chatbot produced three verbatim BGH quotes that were complete fabrications.
  • Issued a formal judicial rebuke.
  • Landgericht Frankfurt (Germany).
  • Dated September 25, 2025; court labeled the AI-generated authorities complete fakes.
Reprimanded 2025-09-05
The court struck portions of an opening brief after counsel submitted a non-existent case citation and fake quote consistent with AI hallucination.
Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · D. Arizona · AZ
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration involving counsel
  • Brief contained one non-existent case citation and one false quotation
  • Court granted motion to strike defective portions of the opening brief
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (D. Arizona)
  • Order issued on September 5, 2025; court noted counsel had past AI citation sanctions
Reprimanded CoCounsel 2025-09-05
The court ordered Attorney Cervantes to complete CLE and circulate the decision within her firm after submitting an AI-fabricated citation via CoCounsel.
Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. · Cervantes · N.D. California · CA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. involving Attorney Cervantes
  • Submitted a fabricated case citation generated using CoCounsel
  • Ordered to complete CLE and circulate the judicial decision within her law firm
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. California)
  • Order issued on September 5, 2025; rejected attorney's software glitch explanation
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.