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 2025-08-07
Counsel submitted misleading citations, false quotes, and fabricated case law, leading to a state bar referral and costs order.
Pineda v. Campos · CA Arizona · AZ
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Pineda v. Campos involved Husband's appellate counsel.
  • Counsel provided misleading citations, false quotes, and fabricated case law.
  • Referred to the State Bar for investigation and awarded costs to prevailing party.
  • Arizona Court of Appeals (State).
  • Decided August 7, 2025.
Fined $2K Westlaw Precision 2025-08-06
An attorney was sanctioned $1,500 after using an AI tool to summarize an opinion and improperly quoting text that did not actually appear in the decision.
In re BFI Waste Sys. of Tenn. · Billy Ringger · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · TN
“[A]rtificial intelligence combines the illusion of thorough review and analysis with the temptations of speed and low cost.”
mondaq.com ↗
The file →
  • Environmental attorney Billy Ringger was sanctioned by the court.
  • Ringger included language in quotes from a WestLaw AI summary without verifying it appeared in the opinion.
  • Federal Magistrate Judge Luke Evans imposed a $1,500 monetary sanction.
  • The order was issued in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
  • On August 6, 2025, Judge Evans noted that AI offers speed and low cost but creates the illusion of thorough review.
Filing dismissed $86K ChatGPT 2025-08-01
Lawyer James Martin Paul filed briefs with hallucinated AI citations in ByoPlanet cases; the court dismissed the federal matters, awarded fees, and referred him to the Florida Bar.
ByoPlanet International v. Johansson and Gilstrap · James Martin Paul · Southern District of Florida · FL
“When he argued the fine was too high, the court shot back that caving to his arguments “would only benefit serial hallucinators.””
relativity.com ↗
The file →
  • ByoPlanet Int’l, LLC v. Johansson and related matters; attorney James Martin Paul
  • Paul used hallucinated citations across eight matters and even filed fabricated quotations after being put on notice
  • Judge Leibowitz dismissed the four federal matters without prejudice and without leave to amend, awarded fees and costs, and referred Paul to the Florida Bar
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Florida
  • July 17, 2025; Paul told the court he and his paralegal used ChatGPT
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-08-01
A Victorian solicitor filed AI-generated content with inaccurate citations and was later disciplined by the Victorian Legal Services Board.
Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166 · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
lst.org.au ↗
The file →
  • Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166 involved a Victorian solicitor
  • The solicitor filed AI-generated content containing inaccurate citations
  • The Victorian Legal Services Board imposed discipline including loss of principal rights and trust-money authority
  • The underlying matter was in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
  • In August 2025, the sanction included two years of supervised practice with quarterly reporting
Filing dismissed 2025-08-01
CBCA dismissed Oready's appeal without prejudice after records showed the certified claim included hallucinated case law.
Oready, LLC CBCA appeal (August 2025) · Oready, LLC · Civilian Board of Contract Appeals
burr.com ↗
The file →
  • Oready, LLC was identified in a CBCA appeal involving hallucinated case law.
  • The appeal records showed Gen-AI misuse in the certified claim.
  • CBCA dismissed the appeal without prejudice.
  • Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, federal.
  • August 2025; the appeal was also dismissed because it was premature.
Reprimanded 2025-08-01
A solicitor tendered a list and summary of legal authorities that did not exist, and the Victorian Legal Services Board varied his practising certificate.
Dayal · Mr Dayal · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
“The use of technology is an integral part of efficient modern legal practice.”
cowellclarke.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Dayal and Mr Dayal were sanctioned after tendering authorities that did not exist.
  • The filing used AI and contained false or fictitious legal authorities.
  • The Victorian Legal Services Board varied his practising certificate; no amount was stated.
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Victoria.
  • August 2025; he could no longer practise as principal or handle trust moneys and had supervised practice for two years.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-08-01
A Victorian solicitor filed fictional AI-generated cases in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and lost his ability to practise as a principal lawyer, handle trust money and operate his own practice.
Victorian solicitor matter · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
mccullough.com.au ↗
The file →
  • A Victorian solicitor was sanctioned in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
  • He submitted fictional AI-generated cases to the court.
  • He lost his ability to practise as a principal lawyer, handle trust money and operate his own practice.
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia; Australia.
  • August 2025; the page says this was the first Australian lawyer sanctioned for misusing AI in court.
Fined 2025-07-30
A UK law firm filed an application with two AI-generated fake cases, then the claim was struck out with indemnity costs and a wasted costs order was made.
Birmingham City University claim · unnamed UK law firm · Divisional Court
“His Honour Judge Charman found that the solicitor’s and firm’s conduct was improper, unreasonable and negligent, applying the Divisional Court’s June guidance from Ayinde.”
vinciworks.com ↗
The file →
  • Unnamed UK law firm in a Birmingham City University claim
  • Filed an application citing two fictitious AI-generated cases
  • Claim was struck out with indemnity costs and a wasted costs order followed
  • Divisional Court / UK, in a Birmingham City University matter
  • 30 July 2025; fake cases were generated by an AI research feature in legal software
Referred to the bar $1K Copilot 2025-07-29
The attorney filed papers with AI-generated case summaries and misleading citations, and the court fined him $1,000 and referred him to the Attorney Grievance Committee.
Idehen v. Stoute-Phillip · Innocent Chinweze · New York trial court · NY
“The judge, Kimon C. Thermos, called the excuse an “incredible and unsupported statement.””
nysba.org ↗
The file →
  • Idehen v. Stoute-Phillip; the attorney for the landlord
  • Papers included cites to real cases that did not support the propositions stated and AI-generated summaries
  • The court imposed a $1,000 fine and referred the attorney to grievance authorities
  • New York trial court
  • Counsel first said he used Microsoft Copilot and did not read the cases cited

Showing 751–760 of 857.

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