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
Fined $2K 2025-06-30
The Court of Appeals of Georgia vacated a trial court order that relied on fictitious cases and imposed a $2,500 penalty.
Shahid v. Esaam · Diana Lynch · Georgia Court of Appeals · GA
“We are troubled by the citation of bogus cases in the trial court’s order.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Epps v. Epps (248 Ga. 637,285 S.E.2d 180, 1981)
  • Hodge v. Hodge (269 Ga. 604,501 S.E.2d 169, 1998)
capclaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Shahid v. Esaam; attorney Diana Lynch was sanctioned.
  • The trial court order and later filings contained bogus case citations.
  • The Court of Appeals struck the order, remanded the case, and sanctioned Lynch.
  • Georgia Court of Appeals, reviewing a DeKalb County Superior Court divorce matter.
  • June 30, 2025; the court said it had no proof AI was used but speculated about a consumer AI model.
Referred to the bar Legal Genius 2025-06-30
The court referred the submission of AI-hallucinated case authorities to the Legal Practice Council for disciplinary investigation.
Northbound Processing (Pty) Ltd v South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator and Others (2025/072038) [2025] ZAGPJHC 661 · Gauteng Division of the High Court · South Africa
“such conduct is unacceptable”
golegal.co.za ↗
The file →
  • Northbound Processing (Pty) Ltd v South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator.
  • Practitioners submitted AI-hallucinated case authorities to the court.
  • Referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation into potential professional misconduct.
  • South African court.
  • The court treated the submission of fabricated authorities as potentially crossing into professional misconduct.
Fined $100 2025-06-24
A lawyer’s written submissions cited non-existent cases, and the court ordered the submissions re-filed and imposed $100 in costs.
Hussein v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) · Federal Court of Canada
“The Court confirms that the inclusion of a Declaration, in and of itself, will not attract an adverse inference by the Court.”
clia.ca ↗
The file →
  • Hussein v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) involved written submissions citing cases that did not exist.
  • The court said the real issue was failure to disclose generative AI use.
  • The lawyer had to re-file the submissions and pay $100 in costs.
  • Federal Court, Canada.
  • 2025 FC 1138; the court encouraged parties to alert it when they see fake cases.
Warned 2025-06-20
A litigant-in-person and a trade mark attorney relied on AI-generated inaccuracies, and the tribunal issued warnings to both.
BL O/0559/25 · UKIPO trade mark appeal tribunal
counselmagazine.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • BL O/0559/25 is a UKIPO trade mark appeal.
  • Both a litigant-in-person and a trade mark attorney relied on AI-generated inaccuracies.
  • The tribunal warned both participants.
  • The article says the attorney’s breach was particularly severe.
  • The incident was dated 20 June 2025.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-06-06
The claimant's solicitor relied on 45 client-provided case citations, 18 fictitious, and the court referred him to the SRA.
Al-Haroun v. Qatar National Bank · Abid Hussain; Primus Solicitors · High Court of Justice, Divisional Court
“a matter of the utmost seriousness”
global.lockton.com ↗
The file →
  • Hamad Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC and QNB Capital LLC; Abid Hussain of Primus Solicitors
  • Witness statements contained eighteen non-existent case authorities and misquoted genuine ones
  • The court did not initiate contempt proceedings and said referral to the regulator was more appropriate
  • Divisional Court, UK; the article says the decision was published on 6 June 2025
  • Dias J called it "a matter of the utmost seriousness" and said counsel failed to check the information provided by the client
Referred to the bar 2025-06-06
A pupil barrister filed judicial review grounds citing five non-existent cases and misstating the Housing Act 1996; the High Court issued a wasted costs order and referred him.
Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) · counsel in R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey · High Court of Justice (Administrative Court)
“Those who use artificial intelligence to conduct legal research notwithstanding these risks have a professional duty to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.”
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey involved a pupil barrister.
  • He cited five non-existent cases and misstated the Housing Act 1996 in judicial review grounds.
  • The High Court issued a wasted costs order and referred him to the Bar Standards Board.
  • The court was the High Court in the UK.
  • The judgment warned that freely available generative AI tools are not capable of reliable legal research.
Fined $6K ChatGPT 2025-05-28
Attorney Rafael Ramirez was sanctioned $6,000 and subsequently resigned after submitting briefs containing fake AI-generated citations on three occasions.
Mid Central Operating Engineers Health & Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC · Rafael Ramirez · U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore · IN
inkfreenews.com ↗
The file →
  • Mid Central Operating Engineers Health & Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC involved a repeat-offending attorney.
  • The lawyer repeatedly cited nonexistent cases across three separate court filings.
  • The court ordered a $6,000 personal monetary penalty against the lawyer and referred him to the state bar.
  • The ruling was issued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
  • The order was entered on May 28, 2025, reducing the magistrate judge's recommended $15,000 fine to $6,000.
Caught, not sanctioned Claude 2025-05-23
Latham filed an expert declaration with a Claude-formatted citation that fabricated the article title and authors.
Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC · Latham & Watkins · N.D. Cal. · CA
“undermines the overall credibility”
llms-for-lawyers.com ↗
The file →
  • Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC involved Latham and Watkins.
  • Claude was used to format a reference, but it fabricated the title and authors.
  • Judge Susan van Keulen struck the affected paragraph; no one was sanctioned.
  • N.D. Cal., California.
  • May 2025; the error was a single citation in an expert declaration.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-05-21
A Toronto lawyer filed AI-generated fake case citations and avoided contempt charges after the judge accepted public shaming and remedial steps.
Toronto Lawyer Avoids Contempt Charges for AI-Generated Fake Case Citations
“The judge said public shaming, as well as the fact that the lawyer took full responsibility for the errors and committed to remedial measures, was enough.”
law.com ↗
The file →
  • A Toronto lawyer faced contempt charges over AI-generated fake case citations.
  • The filing included hallucinated citations, but the court did not impose contempt.
  • Sanction type was none; the lawyer narrowly avoided sanctions.
  • Toronto, Canada; the court and judge are not named on the page.
  • May 21, 2025; the judge relied on public shaming and remedial measures.
Fined $2K 2025-05-20
Lord and Bello filed a response with a hallucinated case citation; Judge Matthewman ordered an AI ethics CLE, reimbursed fees and costs, and fined them.
Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enterprises, LLC · Timothy Lord; Joel Bello · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · FL
““In the Court's view, there is nothing inherently wrong with an attorney properly and competently utilizing AI or any of its subsets to practice law or litigate cases,””
relativity.com ↗
The file →
  • Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enters., LLC involved Timothy Lord and Joel Bello.
  • They filed a response containing a hallucinated case citation and later withdrew it.
  • Judge Matthewman imposed fees and costs, ordered an AI CLE, and fined Lord $1,000 and Bello $500.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Florida.
  • Order dated 2025-05-20; the article says neither lawyer purposely attempted to mislead the court.

Showing 781–790 of 857.

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