legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
857
Incidents tracked
266
Incidents in 2026
$2,397,608
In fines, where reported
212 of 857 report an amount

The curve

Incidents per month

Last 18 months of published incidents, by the date of the court's order.

May 2025 Oct 2026

Charting 447 of 857 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 147 Claude 9 CoCounsel 8 Copilot 8 Gemini 8 Lexis+ AI 6 AI-assisted legal software 4 Westlaw Precision 4 ChatGPT-4o 2 ChatOn 2 Eve 2 Google AI 2 LEAP 2 Perplexity AI 2 AI Overviews 1 Archie 1 Centient AI 1 ChatGPT-4 1 ClearBrief 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 GPT-3.5 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google Scholar 1 Grammarly 1 Grok 1 Irys 1 Legal Genius 1 LegalAI 1 MX2.law 1 OpenCase 1 Strongsuit 1 vLex Fastcase 1

Counts only incidents where the filing court or the reporting named the tool.

Hall of Shame

All Fined 249 Caught, not sanctioned 198 Warned 124 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 57 Filing dismissed 39 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
Referred to the bar 2025-10-10
A Melbourne lawyer filed AI-generated family law citations, many of which did not exist, and the hearing was adjourned with referral for investigation.
Victorian family law matter · a Melbourne lawyer · Victorian legal complaints body · VIC
cgw.com.au ↗
The file →
  • A Melbourne lawyer in a family law matter
  • Used AI to generate case citations; many cases did not exist
  • Hearing adjourned and the lawyer was referred for investigation
  • Victorian legal complaints body, Victoria
  • 2025-10-10; the article says the lawyer relied on AI-generated citations
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-10-09
A Massachusetts attorney filed a brief with faulty GAI-generated content, and the court order on the defendant’s supplemental motion addressed the filing.
Commonwealth v. Moraes · Middlesex Superior Court · MA
bostonbar.org ↗
The file →
  • Commonwealth v. Moraes involved a Massachusetts attorney.
  • The brief included faulty GAI-generated content.
  • The page does not state any sanction was imposed.
  • Middlesex Superior Court, Massachusetts.
  • October 9, 2025; the article cites a memorandum and order on the defendant’s supplemental combined motion to dismiss.
Filing dismissed 2025-10-07
Defense counsel's nullity appeal was rejected without substantive reply due to reliance on artificial intelligence fabrications.
OGH 14 Os 95/25i · OGH
llms-for-lawyers.com ↗
The file →
  • OGH 14 Os 95/25i involving defense counsel in Austria.
  • Appeal relied on invented legal material created by artificial intelligence.
  • Nullity appeal was rejected outright without substantive court response.
  • Supreme Court of Justice (OGH, Austria).
  • Dated October 7, 2025; court ruled filing evaded substantive judicial review.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-10-06
A lawyer filed grounds of appeal with at least two non-existent authorities, and the judge ordered the solicitor to show cause why the matter should not be referred to the SRA.
AK v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Upper Tribunal
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • AK v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a lawyer's appeal grounds.
  • The false citations likely came from unchecked generative-AI drafting.
  • The judge directed the solicitor to show cause about an SRA referral.
  • Upper Tribunal, UK.
  • 6 October 2025; the page names ChatGPT as the AI tool.
Fined $5K 2025-10-06
Judge William S. Stickman IV found Blackburn filed briefs with wholly fabricated quotations and misrepresented authorities linked to generative AI, then imposed sanctions.
Jakes v. Youngblood et al. · Tyrone A. Blackburn · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania · PA
“At this point, any attorney—but especially attorneys like [the sanctioned lawyer] with a cosmopolitan, multistate, practice—cannot plead ignorance to justify their use or misuse of AI in drafting legal documents.”
theinternetninja.com ↗
The file →
  • Jakes v. Youngblood et al.; Tyrone Blackburn was sanctioned.
  • His briefs contained wholly fabricated quotations and misrepresented authorities.
  • The court imposed a $5,000 sanction and some of T.D. Jakes' attorney's fees.
  • W.D. Pa., federal court in Pennsylvania.
  • Orders issued between June and October 2025; the court linked the filings to generative AI.
Fined 2025-10-02
A Mississippi state court judge imposed monetary sanctions on plaintiffs’ counsel for filing fictitious cases and quotations generated by AI.
FormanWatkins’s Mississippi state court case · Mississippi state court · MS
formanwatkins.com ↗
The file →
  • Mississippi state court case involving plaintiffs’ counsel
  • Counsel filed fictitious cases and quotations generated by AI
  • The judge imposed monetary sanctions
  • Mississippi state court in Mississippi
  • October 2, 2025; described as one of the first Mississippi state-court monetary sanctions over hallucinated case law
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
Fined $1K 2025-10-01
Michael Fourte filed briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and quotations, and Justice Joel M. Cohen sanctioned him and referred the matter to ethics committees.
Pamela Ader v. JS Property Holdings LLC · Michael Fourte · New York State Supreme Court, New York County · NY
“"the use of AI is not the problem per se; instead, “[t]he problem arises when attorneys abdicate their responsibility to ensure their factual and legal representations to the Court—even if originally sourced from AI—are accurate.””
nydailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
  • Pamela Ader v. JS Property Holdings LLC; Michael Fourte was sanctioned.
  • Fourte filed briefs containing AI-hallucinated citations and quotations, then added more in opposition papers.
  • Cohen sanctioned him and also sent the decision to ethics committees.
  • New York State Supreme Court, New York City, New York.
  • October 8, 2025; Justice Joel M. Cohen said counsel could not delegate candor to a software program.
Fined $5K ChatGPT 2025-10-01
Mr. Laprade filed proceedings with false AI-generated citations and other authorities, and the Superior Court of Quebec imposed a $5,000 penalty.
Specter Aviation Limited c. Laprade · Jean Laprade · Superior Court of Québec
“The Court therefore imposed a $5,000 sanction on the Defendant, both to punish his conduct and to deter similar behaviour in the future.”
gowlingwlg.com ↗
The file →
  • Specter Aviation Limited v. Laprade; Mr. Laprade was sanctioned
  • He filed proceedings with false citations, decisions, and references produced using AI
  • The court imposed a $5,000 penalty
  • Superior Court of Quebec, Quebec
  • October 1, 2025; the court said AI cannot justify inaccurate or fabricated documents
Warned 2025-10-01
Judge Rudolph Contreras warned Donald Quinn after a brief apparently violated rules by including AI hallucinations in citations.
Quinn Patton filings in Washington, D.C. district court · Donald Quinn · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · DC
“further violations will not be tolerated and may result in sanctions and/or referral to a disciplinary committee.”
thedailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
  • Donald Quinn was warned over hallucinations in a Washington, D.C. filing.
  • He included hallucinations in an opposition brief.
  • Judge Rudolph Contreras warned of sanctions and possible referral.
  • U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
  • October 2025; Contreras said Quinn had apparently violated civil procedure and bar rules.

Showing 691–700 of 857.

Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.