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
Warned 2025-07-25
A representative filed authorities the tribunal could not verify and found some propositions were not in the cited cases, treating the false citations as unreasonable conduct.
Chandra v Royal Mail Group · The Claimant’s representative · Employment tribunal
““12. While these appeared to be important and relevant citations of law, the tribunal on investigation could not find those propositions of law in those cases, and could not find one of the cases referred to. It seemed to the tribunal that these may have been generated by AI””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Chandra v Royal Mail Group involved the claimant’s representative.
  • He cited authorities that could not be verified and one case that did not exist.
  • The tribunal found the false citations were unreasonable conduct.
  • Employment tribunal; jurisdiction and location were not stated beyond the tribunal.
  • 25 July 2025; the tribunal said the citations may have been generated by AI.
Warned 2025-07-25
Bione X, LLC filed citations with hallmarks of cases generated by AI, and GAO dismissed the protest for failure to state a claim while warning about sanctions.
Bione X, LLC · Government Accountability Office
centrelawgroup.com ↗
The file →
  • Bione X, LLC was dismissed after AI-like citations appeared in its filing.
  • GAO said the citations had hallmarks of cases generated by AI.
  • The protest was dismissed for failure to state a claim and GAO reiterated its sanctions warning.
  • Government Accountability Office; federal protest decision.
  • July 25, 2025; GAO focused on unverified AI drafting.
Caught, not sanctioned Perplexity AI 2025-07-23
A clerk used Perplexity AI and produced fabricated party names, invented precedents, and wrong statements of state law, leading Judge Henry T. Wingate to vacate the order.
Jackson Fed’n of Teachers v. State · Southern District of Mississippi · MS
“technical mistake”
wabarnews.org ↗
The file →
  • Jackson Fed’n of Teachers v. State; a clerk
  • Used Perplexity AI and generated fabricated party names and invented precedents
  • Order was vacated; no sanction amount stated
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
  • July 23, 2025; Judge Henry T. Wingate tried to remove the original from the public docket
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-07-23
An LIP filed fabricated tax cases generated by AI, and the Upper Tribunal declined sanctions while noting systemic risks.
HMRC v Gunnarsson · Upper Tribunal
thebarristergroup.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • HMRC v Gunnarsson involved an LIP and fabricated tax cases.
  • The LIP relied on hallucinated authorities generated by AI.
  • The Upper Tribunal declined sanctions and expressed sympathy.
  • The court was the Upper Tribunal in the UK.
  • The page says the ruling warned that repeated hallucinations could force courts to verify every citation.
Referred to the bar $100K ChatGPT 2025-07-23
Attorneys submitted five ChatGPT-fabricated citations in discovery motions, resulting in public reprimand, disqualification from the case, and state bar referral.
Frankie Johnson v. Jefferson S. Dunn et al. · William Cranford, Matthew Reeves, and William Lunsford · United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · AL
“"failing to prevent AI hallucinations in legal filings"”
dailyjournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Johnson v. Dunn involved attorneys William Cranford, Matthew Reeves, and William Lunsford.
  • Reeves inserted 5 fabricated citations generated by ChatGPT into two discovery motions without verifying them.
  • The court ordered a public reprimand, disqualification from the case, and referral to the state bar.
  • The case was decided in the Northern District of Alabama.
  • The sanction order was issued on July 23, 2025, finding the conduct tantamount to subjective bad faith.
Fined $2K 2025-07-23
Counsel filed a response to a motion to dismiss with four fictitious or incorrect cases used by a law clerk, resulting in a $2,500 fine and required CLE.
Karina Elizondo vs. City of Laredo · S.D. Texas · TX
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Elizondo v. City of Laredo involved an attorney whose law clerk used AI to research authority.
  • Counsel filed a brief containing four case citations that were fictitious or materially wrong.
  • The court imposed a $2,500 sanction, three hours of CLE (including AI), and required notice to the client.
  • The case took place in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
  • The order was entered on July 23, 2025, noting the delegation of AI legal research to a law clerk.
Warned Copilot 2025-07-23
Lawyer used Copilot resulting in false legal quotes and was ordered to undergo continuing legal education.
Vita Law Offices v. Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. · S.D. Florida · FL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Vita Law Offices v. Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. involving an attorney
  • Counsel submitted false quotes from case law generated via Copilot
  • Court ordered the attorney to undergo mandatory CLE
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
  • Order issued on July 23, 2025
Fined $8K 2025-07-21
Lawyer filed briefs with nonexistent cases in a parental rights appeal and was ordered to disgorge fees and pay monetary sanctions.
In re Boy · CA Illinois · IL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Boy involving an attorney in a parental rights appeal
  • Lawyer cited eight nonexistent cases and submitted false quotes
  • Sanctioned $7,925 in monetary penalties and fee disgorgement
  • Decided in the Illinois Court of Appeals
  • Order issued July 21, 2025; found in violation of Rule 375
Fined $6K ChatGPT 2025-07-18
Thomas Nield used ChatGPT to research a Chapter 13 issue and filed briefs with nonexistent cases and quotes; Judge Michael Slade fined him $5,500.
In re Marla C. Martin · Thomas Nield · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois · IL
“The next lawyer who does the same thing is warned that he or she will likely see a more significant penalty.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Thomas Nield, a former Semrad Law Firm bankruptcy attorney, was sanctioned in Illinois.
  • He used ChatGPT and filed documents with hallucinated cases and quotes.
  • Judge Michael Slade imposed a $5,500 fine.
  • The sanction came from the Illinois bankruptcy court.
  • The article says he used ChatGPT for an ancillary issue in a Chapter 13 case and was terminated in September.

Showing 761–770 of 857.

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