legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
851
Incidents tracked
262
Incidents in 2026
$2,417,608
In fines, where reported
214 of 851 report an amount

The curve

Incidents per month

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

Apr 2025 Sep 2026

Charting 446 of 851 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 151 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 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 251 Caught, not sanctioned 199 Warned 126 Referred to the bar 98 Reprimanded 85 Outcome unclear 53 Filing dismissed 36 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
Referred to the bar
A Florida state appeals court sanctioned an attorney and referred him to the state bar after finding his filings contained at least 46 AI hallucinations.
Florida Attorney AI Misuse Matter · Florida District Court of Appeal · FL
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • A Florida state appellate court sanctioned an unnamed Florida attorney.
  • The attorney's court filings contained at least 46 AI-generated hallucinations.
  • The court issued a monetary fine and referred the attorney to the state bar.
  • The matter occurred in a Florida state court of appeal.
  • The decision was issued on Friday in August 2026 due to the attorney's unapologetic AI use.
Reprimanded 2026-08-26
The court admonished a lawyer for submitting filings that contained misrepresented case law.
Tyler Shelbert v. Baxter International, Inc. · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · IL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Tyler Shelbert v. Baxter International, Inc. involved a lawyer submitting misrepresented legal citations.
  • Counsel submitted court papers misrepresenting case law due to suspected AI usage.
  • The court admonished the attorney.
  • The ruling was issued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
  • The order was filed on August 26, 2026.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-08-25
The court declined to refer counsel to the disciplinary commission despite citation inaccuracies in a brief because there were no fake cases and counsel attempted to correct them.
Benjamin v. State · Appellate Court of Maryland · MD
“We again urge counsel, however, to use AI responsibly and check the accuracy of all citations before submitting a brief to this Court, or any other court.”
ediscoveryllc.com ↗
The file →
  • Counsel submitted a brief containing AI-related legal citation inaccuracies in Benjamin v. State.
  • The brief contained inaccurate references but no entirely fabricated cases.
  • The court declined to impose sanctions or refer counsel to the Attorney Grievance Commission.
  • Decided by the Appellate Court of Maryland in an unreported opinion.
  • Dated August 25, 2026; counsel sought to rectify errors prior to the state's filing.
Reprimanded 2026-08-25
An attorney filed a brief containing 25 phantom quotes and was ordered to complete a CLE course on AI or appellate practice within six months.
LPC Commercial Services, LLC v. Ar-Razzaaq Properties, LLC · Michael Hadeed Jr · Court of Appeals of Virginia · VA
“We suspect that being the subject of this cautionary tale is penalty enough at this juncture; but because we are compelled by statute and case law to impose a consequence for the offending brief, we call upon counsel to complete a continuing legal education course relating to AI or appellate practice within six months of the issuance of this opinion.”
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • LPC Commercial Services v. Ar-Razzaaq Properties involved attorney Michael Hadeed Jr.
  • Hadeed filed an appellate brief containing 25 phantom quotes attributed to Virginia cases.
  • The court sanctioned Hadeed by requiring him to complete an AI or appellate CLE course.
  • The decision was issued by the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
  • Judge Frank K. Friedman issued the opinion, noting the brief illustrated the perils of unverified AI research.
Outcome unclear
An unregistered barrister misled the court by including AI hallucinations in her submissions.
BCP v A Mother · Family Court
regulationandcomplianceoffice.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Matter involved an unregistered barrister who held herself out as a lawyer
  • The representative included AI hallucinations in court submissions
  • The court found no deliberate intent to mislead but expressed serious concern
  • Family Court [2026] EWFC 71 (B) (England and Wales)
  • 2026 judgment emphasizing that courts view AI hallucinations as serious even if unintentional
Reprimanded ChatGPT 2026-08-24
The court issued a formal public reprimand after a lawyer submitted court filings containing false quotes and misrepresented cases generated by ChatGPT.
Michael L. Ruiz v. Magellan Financial & Insurance Services (2) · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · AZ
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Michael L. Ruiz v. Magellan Financial involved a lawyer who used ChatGPT to generate legal submissions.
  • Counsel filed briefs containing false quotes and misrepresented case law created by ChatGPT.
  • The court issued a formal public reprimand against the lawyer.
  • The decision occurred in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
  • The formal reprimand was ordered on August 24, 2026.
Fined $2K 2026-08-21
A Florida state appeals court sanctioned an attorney with a $1,500 fine and bar referral for submitting briefs containing at least 46 AI-hallucinated citations.
Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association · Kenneth H. Keefe · Second District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida · FL
“Because the bulk of attorney Keefe's legal argument in the offending filings is based on hallucinated authority, it is obvious to us that generative AI was not merely attorney Keefe's 'supplemental research tool,' as he claims, but his primary or only one.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Board of Regents v. Wilson, 365 So 2d 213
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Capital Standard LLC v. US Bank; attorney Kenneth H. Keefe (Keefe Law Firm PA) sanctioned.
  • Keefe submitted court briefs replete with at least 46 hallucinated legal citations produced by generative AI.
  • Imposed a $1,500 fine, a Florida Bar referral, and ordered Keefe to pay opposing counsel's attorney fees.
  • Second District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida (Panel led by Judge Susan H. Rothstein-Youakim).
  • Keefe ignored an initial show-cause order and failed to apologize, claiming he did not know AI could produce bogus results.
Fined
Two lawyers representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell were fined for filing court documents containing more than two dozen AI-hallucinated case citations.
Mike Lindell defamation lawsuit · U.S. District Court
socialistproject.ca ↗
The file →
  • Two lawyers representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell were sanctioned.
  • The attorneys filed court documents that included over two dozen hallucinated cases.
  • The court imposed a monetary fine for violating federal rules requiring well-grounded legal claims.
  • The decision was issued by Judge Nina Y. Wang in federal court.
  • The judge found that fake AI-generated cases fail the requirement that court claims be well-grounded in law.
Warned Strongsuit 2026-08-20
Plaintiff's counsel filed a joint claim construction brief containing AI-generated errors, but the court declined to impose Rule 11 sanctions after counsel promptly disclosed the mistakes.
Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Products Inc. et al. · U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware · DE
“The Court expects that these events and this Opinion shall serve as a cautionary warning and learning experience for counsel moving forward.”
legaltech.fyi ↗
The file →
  • Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Prods. Inc. involved plaintiff's counsel using generative AI.
  • Counsel used the AI tool Strongsuit to draft a brief containing erroneous proposed claim constructions.
  • Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves issued a warning but declined to impose sanctions.
  • The matter was heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • Counsel took full responsibility and prioritized candor, prompting the court to issue a warning instead of sanctions.
Fined $14K 2026-08-20
A lawyer voluntarily repaid $14,500 in adverse costs after submitting court filings containing an AI-fabricated case citation.
Full Standard Properties, LLC v. SJ 6070, LLC · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Full Standard Properties v. SJ 6070 involved a lawyer who submitted an AI-fabricated case citation.
  • Counsel included a fabricated case law citation in court filings.
  • The lawyer voluntarily agreed to pay $14,500 in adverse costs.
  • The proceeding took place in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
  • The outcome was recorded on August 20, 2026.

Showing 71–80 of 851.

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