legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
251
Incidents tracked
81
Incidents in 2026
$1,813,310
In fines, where reported
186 of 251 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 139 of 251 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 53 Claude 4 Lexis+ AI 4 Westlaw Precision 4 CoCounsel 3 Copilot 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 Archie 1 ChatOn 1 ClearBrief 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 Gemini 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google AI 1 Google Scholar 1 Grok 1 Irys 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 125 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 56 Filing dismissed 37 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1

Showing 71–80 of 251 incidents. Clear filters

Fined $2K ChatGPT
An attorney filed a pleading citing at least six nonexistent cases, and Judge Martínez fined him $1,500 and ordered ethics training and bar reporting.
Unnamed New Mexico attorney · unnamed New Mexico attorney · U.S. Magistrate Judge Damian Martínez · NM
“The six cases were fake and likely the handiwork of a ChatGPT or similar artificial intelligence (AI) program’s hallucinations,”
govtech.com ↗
The file →
  • An unnamed New Mexico attorney was sanctioned for fake citations.
  • He filed a pleading with at least six nonexistent cases.
  • Judge Martínez fined him $1,500 and required bar reporting and AI ethics training.
  • U.S. Magistrate Judge Damian Martínez, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
  • Last year; the article says the fake cases were likely from ChatGPT or a similar AI program.
Fined
Wright filed briefs with fake cases and fabricated quotations in a discrimination suit against the Phoenix Suns, and Judge Murray Snow ordered her to pay some attorneys’ fees and take ethics training.
Phoenix Suns lawsuit · Sheree Wright · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · AZ
“U.S. District Judge Murray Snow called Wright’s explanation a “convoluted tale.””
azfamily.com ↗
The file →
  • Phoenix Suns discrimination lawsuit against Sheree Wright
  • Wright filed legal briefs with AI hallucinations, including fake cases and quotations
  • Judge ordered her to cover some attorneys’ fees and complete AI ethics training
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona; federal court in Arizona
  • Date not stated; ruling was forwarded to the Arizona State Bar and district and magistrate judges in Arizona
Fined $5K
A Camden County attorney filed a motion with AI-generated fake citations and was ordered to pay $5,000 in sanctions.
Unnamed Camden County attorney sanction · Unnamed Camden County attorney · Camden County court · NJ
nj.com ↗
The file →
  • Unnamed Camden County attorney was sanctioned in a case described on the page.
  • The attorney used artificial intelligence to file a motion with fake citations.
  • The court ordered $5,000 in sanctions.
  • The matter was in Camden County, New Jersey.
  • The page gives no date, judge name, or AI tool.
Fined
A pro se plaintiff filed fictitious AI citations and then gave a false explanation; the court sanctioned her for the Rule 11 breach.
Zhang v. Driscoll · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
“simply not credible”
advocateprakhar.com ↗
The file →
  • Zhang v. Driscoll involved a pro se plaintiff in N.D. Cal.
  • She filed fictitious case citations and blamed 'editing errors.'
  • The court sanctioned her for a Rule 11 violation.
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
  • Jan. 2026; the court found her explanation 'simply not credible.'
Fined $6K
A complainant’s final written submissions cited non-existent cases, and the Employment Relations Authority ordered further costs against the complainant.
Wellington physiotherapy company grievance case · Employment Relations Authority
newsroom.co.nz ↗
The file →
  • The incident arose in a personal grievance case against a Wellington physiotherapy company.
  • Despite reminders, the final submissions cited cases that did not exist.
  • The complainant was ordered to pay $6500 to the business.
  • Court: Employment Relations Authority in Wellington, New Zealand.
  • Date not stated; the article describes it as a case being handled by the Authority.
Fined
The Supreme Court refused leave in four applications after finding many cited authorities were irrelevant or non-existent AI hallucinations, awarding $2,500 costs to each respondent.
Liyun Chen v Goodmore Investments and Tawa Trade Finance · Supreme Court of New Zealand
““Many of Ms Chen’s authorities are irrelevant or do not exist – in either case appearing to be hallucinations of a generative artificial intelligence application.””
newsroom.co.nz ↗
The file →
  • Chen v Goodmore Investments (NZ) Ltd involved AI-hallucinated and irrelevant citations.
  • A party presented authorities that did not exist or were completely irrelevant.
  • The court awarded costs of $2,500 to each respondent.
  • Supreme Court of New Zealand.
  • Decision issued in May 2026 highlighting the risks of generative AI in court filings.
Fined $5K ChatGPT
Two New York lawyers filed a brief with six fake ChatGPT-created case citations and were fined $5,000.
Two New York lawyers sanction incident · two New York lawyers · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
cnbc.com ↗
The file →
  • Two New York lawyers were the sanctioned attorneys.
  • They submitted a legal brief with six fake case citations created by ChatGPT.
  • The court fined them $5,000.
  • The matter was in federal court in New York.
  • The page says this happened in 2023, and the AI tool was ChatGPT.
Fined $5K ChatGPT
A New York lawyer filed court papers citing fake legal cases generated by ChatGPT, and the judge fined the lawyer and his firm $5,000.
Unknown New York lawyer matter · a New York lawyer · court not named on page · NY
bloomfire.com ↗
The file →
  • A New York lawyer and his firm were fined in court.
  • He filed papers with fake legal cases generated by ChatGPT.
  • The judge imposed a $5,000 fine.
  • The page does not name the court or judge.
  • The article names ChatGPT as the source of the fabricated citations.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.