legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
126
Incidents tracked
50
Incidents in 2026
$4,000
In fines, where reported
1 of 126 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 74 of 126 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 20 Copilot 5 AI-assisted legal software 2 ChatGPT-4o 1 Claude 1 CoCounsel 1 Legal Genius 1 Lexis+ AI 1 Strongsuit 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 126 incidents. Clear filters

Warned ChatGPT 2026-05-05
Kelly Guagenty filed a brief with AI-caused citation errors, mischaracterizations and an improper quotation; Judge Stacey D. Neumann ordered AI training and new safeguards but no fine.
Jessica Fuller v Hyde School · Karen Guagenty · U.S. District Court for the District of Maine · ME
“Although AI can be a useful aid in research and drafting, its use does not diminish an attorney's nondelegable duties of diligence, candor, and reasonable inquiry.”
habeas.ai ↗
The file →
  • FULLER v. HYDE SCHOOL involved Attorney Kelly Guagenty.
  • She submitted two filings with AI-generated erroneous legal citations.
  • The court imposed non-monetary sanctions.
  • United States District Court for the District of Maine, Maine.
  • May 5, 2026; counsel said the AI used was either Claude or ChatGPT.
Warned 2026-04-30
A lawyer cited fabricated case law generated by AI and received an admonishment and warning.
Pham v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 694 · Federal Court
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Pham v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship involved a lawyer using AI.
  • The filing included a fabricated case law citation.
  • The court issued an admonishment and warning.
  • The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.
  • The decision was issued on 30 April 2026.
Warned 2026-04-28
Judge Adam B. Abelson threatened sanctions against two self-represented litigants if they kept filing frivolous motions or fabricated legal citations.
Ali Behroz Aziz and Shinkay Aziz matter · U.S. District Court for Maryland · MD
“Although the use of AI tools for legal research or drafting is not inherently improper, Plaintiffs’ avalanche of filings here, whether AI-generated or not, have burdened the Court, advanced frivolous arguments, misstated the record, and fabricated legal authorities,”
thedailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
  • Two self-represented litigants, Ali Behroz Aziz and Shinkay Aziz, were warned by Judge Adam B. Abelson.
  • Their filings were suspected to be AI-drafted and included fabricated legal authorities.
  • The court threatened sanctions if they continued filing frivolous motions or fake citations.
  • U.S. District Court for Maryland, federal court in Maryland.
  • April 28, 2026; the judge said the filings burdened the court and fabricated legal authorities.
Warned 2026-03-26
The Supreme Court said lawyers had cited fabricated AI-generated cases, treating the conduct as professional misconduct.
Heart and Soul Entertainment Ltd. · Supreme Court of India
“the circulation of so-called non-existent AI-generated judgments had become a problem of epidemic proportions.”
lawandotherthings.com ↗
The file →
  • Heart and Soul Entertainment Ltd. involved AI-generated citations in submissions.
  • Lawyers cited fabricated cases that did not exist.
  • The Supreme Court treated the conduct as professional misconduct.
  • Supreme Court of India, in New Delhi.
  • 26 March 2026; the court said non-existent AI-generated judgments were a problem of epidemic proportions.
Warned 2026-03-16
The appellant’s written submissions contained wrong citations and non-existent cases, and the Court of Appeal criticized the AI-hallucination risk but did not impose a sanction in the excerpt.
Von Geitz v. Kelly & Robertson · Irish Court of Appeal
““The plaintiff’s written submissions are littered with propositions of law in quotation marks which are unsupported by authority; reference to authorities which have nothing to do with the asserted propositions of law; wrong citations; and a few non-existent cases.””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Von Geitz v. Kelly & Robertson in the Court of Appeal.
  • Written submissions contained wrong citations and non-existent cases.
  • The court warned and criticized, but the excerpt shows no formal sanction.
  • Court of Appeal, Ireland.
  • 16 March 2026; Allen J. said the non-existent cases might have been AI hallucinations.
Warned 2026-03-09
The court issued an order to show cause after finding two fabricated federal opinion quotations in plaintiffs' memorandum.
M7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados v. U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coalition, et al. · S.D. New York · NY
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • M7 Indústria v. U.S. Structural Plywood involving plaintiffs' counsel
  • Memorandum contained two AI-generated non-existent federal case quotations
  • Order to show cause issued by the court
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • Issued March 9, 2026; counsel ordered to certify review of all cited cases
Warned ChatGPT 2026-03-01
Several authorities and citations in judicial review grounds could not be located; the Tribunal found the errors consistent with AI-hallucination risk and accepted a supervising solicitor's explanation.
R(Munir) and SOSHD · Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber
““Freely available generative artificial intelligence tools, trained on a large language model such as ChatGPT are not capable of conducting reliable legal research.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • R(Munir) and SOSHD concerned false authorities and citations in judicial review grounds.
  • The Tribunal found the pattern of errors consistent with AI-hallucination risk.
  • The supervising solicitor accepted that false citations generated by AI may have been used.
  • Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, UK.
  • 2026-03-01; the Tribunal stressed supervision and accurate checking of documents.
Warned 2026-03-01
Two Quinn Patton partners filed briefs with fake AI-generated case-law quotes, and Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher ordered them to explain the hallucinations.
Quinn Patton filings in U.S. District Court for Maryland · Donald Quinn and Katherine Patton / Quinn Patton · U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland · MD
“attorneys are not entitled to a second bite at the apple”
thedailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
  • Quinn Patton / Donald Quinn and Katherine Patton were scrutinized for five briefs with bogus AI-generated quotes.
  • The filings contained fake case-law quotes and hallucinations.
  • Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher ordered explanations for the hallucinations.
  • U.S. District Court for Maryland in Baltimore, Maryland.
  • March 2026; Gallagher said her concerns extended to the entire firm.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.