legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
101
Incidents tracked
31
Incidents in 2026
$386,941
In fines, where reported
14 of 101 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 60 of 101 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 17 Claude 2 CoCounsel 2 LEAP 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 ChatGPT-4 1 Copilot 1 GPT-3.5 1 Gemini 1 Legal Genius 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 101 incidents. Clear filters

Referred to the bar 2025-11-19
An attorney was referred to the bar association and had his brief partially struck after submitting AI-fabricated legal authority.
Nº 1.0000.25.200097-1/001 (Antônio Carlos Vieira Barbosa) · Antônio Carlos Vieira Barbosa · TJ Minas Gerais
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Case involved attorney Antônio Carlos Vieira Barbosa in Brazil.
  • The lawyer submitted a fake case citation and a fake doctrinal work.
  • The court referred the lawyer to the Bar and partially struck the brief.
  • Decided by Tribunal de Justiça de Minas Gerais (TJMG) in Brazil.
  • Issued November 19, 2025; implied AI hallucination.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-11-17
CLP filed judicial-review grounds with bogus authorities and the Upper Tribunal said the author and COLP should expect referral.
R (Munir) v SSHD · Mr. Zubair Rasheed of City Law Practice Solicitors · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“It would be easy to think that this is a case about the naïve use of generative AI, but it is not merely about that; it is principally about supervision and the obligation to ensure that the tribunal is not misled.”
sra.org.uk ↗
The file →
  • R (Munir) v SSHD involved City Law Practice Solicitors and Advocates and Zubair Rasheed.
  • Judicial-review grounds were filed with bogus authorities and incorrect citations.
  • The Upper Tribunal said the conduct should ordinarily be referred to a regulator.
  • Upper Tribunal (IAC), United Kingdom; Judges Lindsley, Keith and Blundell.
  • 17 November 2025; the court stressed supervision failures and mentioned ChatGPT.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-10-29
Adam Hyman filed an AI-generated divorce brief with fake cases and misquotes, and the Appellate Court of Maryland referred him to the Attorney Grievance Commission.
Mezu v. Mezu · Adam Hyman · Appellate Court of Maryland · MD
“The failure to use AI responsibly in legal research raises ethical issues and can result in sanctions when used improperly. It is unquestionably improper for an attorney to submit a brief with fake cases generated by AI.”
thedailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
  • Adam Hyman was the lawyer referred to the Attorney Grievance Commission.
  • He submitted a divorce brief prepared with ChatGPT that contained fake cases and misquotes.
  • The court imposed a referral to the AGC, with no dollar amount stated.
  • The incident was in the Appellate Court of Maryland in Maryland.
  • The opinion was issued Oct. 29, 2025; Judge Kathryn Graeff said attorneys must verify cited authority.
Referred to the bar 2025-10-28
Attorney Hale filed a brief with hallucinated case citations; the court found a Rule 11 violation but imposed no fine and ordered notice to clients and future ND Ga. filings.
Selena Boston v. Katt Williams · Loletha Denise Hale · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division · GA
““an overwhelming majority of the cases cited by [the plaintiff’s attorney] either did not exist, did not support the proposition for which they were cited, or misquoted the authority.””
technologylaw.fkks.com ↗
The file →
  • Boston v. Williams; attorney Loletha Denise Hale
  • She filed an opposition brief containing fabricated/hallucinated case authority
  • The court found a Rule 11 violation but did not levy a fine
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
  • October 28, 2025; the court ordered client notice and 5 years of disclosure in ND Ga. cases
Referred to the bar 2025-10-17
A lawyer was referred to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner after written submissions cited three fake cases as SAET authorities.
Referral to the LPCC for the citation of fake cases · SAET
“The legal profession should be aware that SAET will not tolerate such conduct, and practitioners can expect similar referrals to the LPCC in similar circumstances.”
saet.sa.gov.au ↗
The file →
  • SAET referred a lawyer to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner.
  • Written submissions included three fake cases said to be SAET authorities.
  • The outcome was a referral, with no dollar amount stated.
  • The court was SAET in South Australia.
  • 17 October 2025; Justice Steven Dolphin said such conduct was the first of its kind he knew of.
Referred to the bar 2025-10-10
A Melbourne lawyer filed AI-generated family law citations, many of which did not exist, and the hearing was adjourned with referral for investigation.
Victorian family law matter · a Melbourne lawyer · Victorian legal complaints body · VIC
cgw.com.au ↗
The file →
  • A Melbourne lawyer in a family law matter
  • Used AI to generate case citations; many cases did not exist
  • Hearing adjourned and the lawyer was referred for investigation
  • Victorian legal complaints body, Victoria
  • 2025-10-10; the article says the lawyer relied on AI-generated citations
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-10-06
A lawyer filed grounds of appeal with at least two non-existent authorities, and the judge ordered the solicitor to show cause why the matter should not be referred to the SRA.
AK v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Upper Tribunal
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • AK v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a lawyer's appeal grounds.
  • The false citations likely came from unchecked generative-AI drafting.
  • The judge directed the solicitor to show cause about an SRA referral.
  • Upper Tribunal, UK.
  • 6 October 2025; the page names ChatGPT as the AI tool.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-09-18
Barrister Muhammad Mujeebur Rahman cited a non-existent case generated with ChatGPT and was referred to the Bar Standards Board.
Y (China) · Muhammad Mujeebur Rahman · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“We do however conclude that this is a case where referral to a regulator, in this instance the BSB, is most definitely appropriate”
localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Muhammad Mujeebur Rahman was the barrister referred to the BSB.
  • He filed an immigration appeal relying on the bogus case Y (China) generated with ChatGPT.
  • The Upper Tribunal referred him to the Bar Standards Board; no contempt or police action was taken.
  • The court was the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) in the UK.
  • On 2025-09-18, judges said he had not ensured the accuracy of what was placed before the tribunal.
Referred to the bar 2025-09-03
A Victorian legal practitioner generated a list of case law with AI, failed to verify it, and was referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board with his practising certificate varied.
Lawyer caught using AI-generated false citations in court case penalised in Australian first · Victorian Legal Services Board · VIC
mondaq.com ↗
The file →
  • A Victorian legal practitioner was sanctioned for AI-generated false citations.
  • He used AI to generate a list of case law and did not verify its accuracy.
  • He was referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board and his practising certificate was varied.
  • The article says he could no longer act as a principal lawyer or handle trust money for two years.
  • The incident is described as an Australian first; no AI tool is named.
Referred to the bar 2025-08-19
A solicitor tendered AI-generated authorities with inaccurate citations, resulting in practising restrictions that banned him from operating as a principal.
In re Mr. Dayal · Mr. Dayal · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
corp-intl.com ↗
The file →
  • Solicitor referred to as Mr. Dayal
  • Tendered AI-generated authorities with inaccurate citations and summaries
  • Practising certificate varied to prohibit working as a principal lawyer for two years
  • Victorian Legal Services Board / Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
  • August 19, 2025 regulatory action requiring supervised employment
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.