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
Filing dismissed 2025-09-11
The Supreme Court set aside NCLT and NCLAT orders after finding that relied-upon precedents were fabricated or contained non-existent passages.
Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr. · NCLT · Supreme Court of India
“a judicial or quasi-judicial decision, which is, in whole or in part, based on falsified (hallucinated) material, is, in law, a subversion of the rule of law.”

Cases that don't exist

  • (2015) 2 SCC 1
casemine.com ↗
The file →
  • Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.; NCLT relied on fake precedents.
  • The tribunal used fake, non-existent, or AI-generated hallucinated legal precedents.
  • The Supreme Court set aside the NCLT order and the NCLAT judgment; no monetary sanction is stated.
  • Supreme Court of India; the article names the court but no judge.
  • Decided 2025-09-11; the Court said there is zero tolerance for AI-generated legal material without verification.
Warned 2025-09-11
The court issued a show cause order after finding counsel's motion contained incomplete, inaccurate, and fabricated AI-generated citations.
USA v. Brewer · M.D. Florida · FL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • USA v. Brewer involving counsel
  • Motion contained two fabricated citations, four false quotes, and misrepresented case law
  • Court issued an Order to Show Cause regarding potential sanctions
  • U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (M.D. Florida)
  • Order issued on September 11, 2025; court described errors as typical AI hallucinations
Fined $2K 2025-09-09
The court fined an attorney $1,500, ordered service of the order on her client, and referred the order to the State Bar of California after she denied using AI.
Teniah Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California · CA
sternekessler.com ↗
The file →
  • Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC involved a female attorney who denied using AI.
  • Attorney submitted fabricated legal citations and falsely denied utilizing artificial intelligence.
  • Court imposed a $1,500 monetary fine, client notification, and clerk referral to the State Bar of California.
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
  • Sanctioned on 2025-09-09 highlighting penalties for concealing AI reliance.
Fined $5K vLex Fastcase 2025-09-08
The court struck briefs, referred counsel to the bar, and imposed a $5,000 fine for submitting a fabricated case citation from AI.
Brooks & Brooks Inc. v. Patel · David Lutz · D. Minn. · MN
roncooklawfirm.com ↗
The file →
  • Brooks and Brooks Inc. v. Patel et al. involving an unnamed lawyer
  • Lawyer relied on VLex Fastcase, leading to one fabricated case citation
  • Court struck briefs, referred lawyer to the bar, and ordered $5,000 sanction
  • District Court of Minnesota (DC Minnesota)
  • Order issued on September 8, 2025; VLex Fastcase used
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
Referred to the bar 2025-09-03
A Victorian legal practitioner generated a list of case law with AI, failed to verify it, and was referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board with his practising certificate varied.
Lawyer caught using AI-generated false citations in court case penalised in Australian first · Victorian Legal Services Board · VIC
mondaq.com ↗
The file →
  • A Victorian legal practitioner was sanctioned for AI-generated false citations.
  • He used AI to generate a list of case law and did not verify its accuracy.
  • He was referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board and his practising certificate was varied.
  • The article says he could no longer act as a principal lawyer or handle trust money for two years.
  • The incident is described as an Australian first; no AI tool is named.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-09-03
A court-appointed special master found Dr. Sawyer cited nonexistent sources from AI use and said the error might warrant costs and cross-examination but not exclusion.
In re: Valsartan Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation · Dr. Sawyer · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
“Dr. Sawyer's citation to non-existent sources due to his use of an artificial intelligence tool without adequate verification of the sources generated by the artificial intelligence tool, while perhaps warranting an award of costs in favor the defense and permitting cross examination of Dr. Sawyer during the trial on his failure to verify the sources cited in his report, does not warrant exclusion of his opinions as they are otherwise the product of reliable scientific methodology and are supported by "good grounds," especially given "the liberal thrust of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the flexible nature of the Daubert inquiry, and the proper roles of the judge and jury in evaluating the ultimate credibility of an expert's opinion" ….”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • In re: Valsartan Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation; Dr. Sawyer was challenged over fake citations in his expert report.
  • He used an artificial intelligence tool to help locate sources, and multiple cited sources were found to be nonexistent.
  • The court did not exclude his opinions, but said the problem could warrant costs and cross-examination.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; the article says the decision was handed down Sept. 3.
  • The page says Dr. Sawyer and counsel never identified the particular AI tool, and the judge cited the liberal thrust of the FRE and Daubert.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-09-01
A Delhi High Court petition was withdrawn after opposing counsel exposed entirely fabricated citations and phantom paragraphs from a real judgment.
Delhi High Court September 2025 matter · Delhi High Court
medianama.com ↗
The file →
  • Delhi High Court petition
  • Opposing counsel exposed entirely fabricated citations, including phantom paragraphs
  • The petition was withdrawn; no sanction is stated
  • Delhi High Court
  • September 2025; the article says the real judgment had only 27 paragraphs
Filing dismissed 2025-09-01
GAO dismissed four Oready protest filings after repeated Gen-AI misuse and hallucinated citations in the protests.
Oready, LLC bid protest (September 2025 GAO decision) · Oready, LLC · Government Accountability Office
burr.com ↗
The file →
  • Oready, LLC was sanctioned in a GAO bid protest decision after repeated Gen-AI misuse.
  • The filings contained hallucinated citations and other inaccurate legal assertions.
  • GAO dismissed four protest filings as the sanction.
  • Government Accountability Office, federal procurement tribunal.
  • September 2025; the report says Oready had filed 15 pro se protests in eight months.

Showing 721–730 of 857.

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