legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
199
Incidents tracked
40
Incidents in 2026
$11,578
In fines, where reported
3 of 199 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 75 of 199 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 32 Gemini 4 Claude 2 Perplexity AI 2 AI Overviews 1 ChatGPT-4o 1 ChatOn 1 Eve 1 Grammarly 1 MX2.law 1 OpenCase 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 199 incidents. Clear filters

Caught, not sanctioned
Romeyn faced State Bar discipline after a personal injury filing allegedly used AI and contained nonexistent and irrelevant citations.
Steven Thomas Romeyn · Steven Thomas Romeyn · State Bar Court · CA
aol.com ↗
The file →
  • Steven Thomas Romeyn was accused by the State Bar over a personal injury case.
  • He allegedly submitted irrelevant and nonexistent citations in an Orange County Superior Court filing.
  • The State Bar Court had not yet ruled, so no sanction had been imposed on this page.
  • The matter was in Orange County Superior Court in California.
  • He later disclosed using AI and said he had not verified every citation before filing.
Caught, not sanctioned
The complainant admitted his WRC complaint was generated using AI and not fully reviewed, and the adjudicator gave his evidence reduced weight without imposing a sanction.
Ferko v. Beyond Reach Limited · Workplace Relations Commission
““While assistance in preparing complaints is not improper, a complainant remains responsible for the accuracy of allegations made on his behalf.””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Ferko v. Beyond Reach Limited before the Workplace Relations Commission.
  • The complaint was prepared by his sister using AI and was not fully verified.
  • The adjudicator reduced the weight of his evidence; no sanction was stated.
  • Workplace Relations Commission, Ireland.
  • Date not given; the decision emphasized responsibility for accuracy.
Caught, not sanctioned
A respondent said the complainant’s prehearing documents were generated by AI and were inadmissible; the adjudicator noted the materials’ poor quality but imposed no sanction.
Goncalves v. Valshan Unlimited · Workplace Relations Commission
““Unfortunately, for me at least, the tangential scattergun, smorgasbord approaches and references coupled with euphemisms formed outside of Europe approaches of this tool were a poor second to human oversight, I have come to expect and anticipate in actual statement and representation during a case.””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Goncalves v. Valshan Unlimited before the Workplace Relations Commission.
  • AI was alleged in prehearing documents; the adjudicator discussed their quality.
  • No sanction was imposed in the excerpt.
  • Workplace Relations Commission, Ireland.
  • Date not given; the adjudicator criticized the tool’s output and human oversight.
Caught, not sanctioned
Brigandi filed briefs containing 15 nonexistent cases and 8 fabricated quotations, even after opposing counsel flagged the earlier errors.
Brigandi
davidkemp.ai ↗
The file →
  • Brigandi was one of the Q1 sanctions cases mentioned on the page.
  • The briefs contained 15 nonexistent cases and 8 fabricated quotations.
  • The page does not state the sanction imposed here.
  • No court, judge, or AI tool is named for this incident.
  • The article says opposing counsel flagged the earlier errors before the later filing.
Caught, not sanctioned $6K
In children proceedings, a father filed applications citing many non-existent cases and the matter was referred upwards.
Father's children proceedings matter · Family Court
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Father's children proceedings matter; the father was involved
  • The father cited many cases that simply were not real
  • The father was ordered to pay £5,900 in costs and the matter was referred upwards
  • Family Court, Midlands
  • Date not stated; the article says a judge noticed many cited cases were not real
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Plaintiffs' attorneys filed AI-generated bogus case law, and the court issued an order to show cause why they should not be sanctioned.
Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiffs' Attorneys Should Not Be Sanctioned · United States District Court for the District of Wyoming · WY
lib.law.uw.edu ↗
The file →
  • Plaintiffs' attorneys in the District of Wyoming
  • They submitted bogus case law created by ChatGPT
  • The court issued an order to show cause, with sanctions threatened
  • United States District Court for the District of Wyoming
  • 2025; the page links this to a 2025 order and names Judge Kelly H. Rankin
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.