legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
86
Incidents tracked
30
Incidents in 2026
$86,945
In fines, where reported
5 of 86 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 49 of 86 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 13 CoCounsel 1 Eve 1 Gemini 1 Lexis+ AI 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 86 incidents. Clear filters

Reprimanded 2025-08-19
A list and summary of AI-generated authorities with inaccurate citations and summaries was tendered to the court and referred to the regulator.
Dayal · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia; Victorian Legal Services Board
regulayer.com ↗
The file →
  • In Dayal, a legal professional was sanctioned.
  • An AI-generated list of authorities with inaccurate citations and summaries was tendered.
  • The sanction included practising certificate variation, two years supervised practice, and quarterly reporting.
  • The incident occurred in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and Victorian Legal Services Board.
  • On 2025-08-19, AI-generated authorities were identified, leading to the only published regulator decision on record.
Reprimanded 2025-08-19
A solicitor was restricted from practicing as a principal or managing trust money after submitting a list of non-existent AI-generated cases.
Victorian Legal Services Board (Mr Dayal) · Mr Dayal · Victorian Legal Services Board
llms-for-lawyers.com ↗
The file →
  • Victorian Legal Services Board (Mr Dayal) involving a Australian solicitor.
  • Solicitor provided a list of fabricated legal decisions generated by an unnamed AI.
  • Barred from practicing as a principal/handling trust funds and placed under two years' supervision.
  • Victorian Legal Services Board (Australia).
  • Dated August 19, 2025; the presiding judge and associates were unable to verify any cited cases.
Reprimanded 2025-08-15
Mr Dayal filed AI-generated false citations in a court submission and had his practising certificate varied, barring him from running his own law practice.
Mr Dayal · Mr Dayal · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
ia.acs.org.au ↗
The file →
  • Mr Dayal was penalised after filing fake AI-generated citations in a submission.
  • He admitted he did not verify the contents before filing.
  • His practising certificate was varied, so he cannot act as a principal lawyer or run his own practice.
  • The matter was in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
  • The article says the regulator acted in mid-August and the lawyer used AI-based legal software.
Reprimanded 2025-08-14
Nathwani received the first Australian practising certificate variation for AI misuse.
[Rishi Nathwani matter] · Rishi Nathwani · Supreme Court of Victoria
“"At the risk of understatement, the manner in which these events have unfolded is unsatisfactory," Elliott told lawyers on Thursday.”
theaibar.in ↗
The file →
  • Nathwani faced sanction over AI misuse.
  • The misuse involved AI, leading to a practising certificate variation.
  • The sanction was a variation of a practising certificate.
  • The incident occurred in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia.
  • The incident date is August 2025, and it was the first such variation in Australia.
Reprimanded 2025-08-07
Counsel submitted fabricated legal citations from AI; court issued an admonishment with no monetary sanctions.
Hall v. The Academy Charter School · E.D. New York · NY
“By far, the majority of courts impose sanctions upon the offending lawyer for this sort of conduct and warnings or reprimands have been meted out in cases typically involving pro se litigants.”
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Hall v. The Academy Charter School involved an unnamed attorney.
  • Counsel submitted briefs containing AI-hallucinated case citations.
  • The court admonished counsel but declined to impose monetary sanctions.
  • E.D. New York (Federal).
  • Decided August 7, 2025; court noted rising AI hallucinations in filings.
Reprimanded 2025-08-01
A solicitor tendered a list and summary of legal authorities that did not exist, and the Victorian Legal Services Board varied his practising certificate.
Dayal · Mr Dayal · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
“The use of technology is an integral part of efficient modern legal practice.”
cowellclarke.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Dayal and Mr Dayal were sanctioned after tendering authorities that did not exist.
  • The filing used AI and contained false or fictitious legal authorities.
  • The Victorian Legal Services Board varied his practising certificate; no amount was stated.
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Victoria.
  • August 2025; he could no longer practise as principal or handle trust moneys and had supervised practice for two years.
Reprimanded 2025-07-02
A lawyer filed a family-law brief with scholarship and case citations the court said were generated by artificial intelligence and freely invented, and the judge publicly rebuked the filing.
Amtsgericht Köln · Local Court Cologne
“make finding justice more difficult, mislead the unknowing reader, and severely damage the reputation of the rule of law and especially the legal profession.”
noxtua.com ↗
The file →
  • Amtsgericht Köln involved a lawyer whose family-law brief contained invented citations.
  • The court found the books and legal decisions cited did not exist.
  • The judge issued a public rebuke over the AI-generated, freely invented citations.
  • Court: Local Court Cologne; jurisdiction/state not given on the page.
  • Date: 2025-07-02; the page says the citations were apparently generated by artificial intelligence.
Reprimanded 2025-07-02
A lawyer filed a family-court brief that the Cologne District Court found was apparently generated by AI and freely fabricated.
312 F 130/25 · Cologne District Court
“Die weiteren von dem Antragsgegnervertreter im Schriftsatz vom 30.06.2025 genannten Voraussetzungen stammen nicht aus der zitieren Entscheidung und sind offenbar mittels künstlicher Intelligenz generiert und frei erfunden”
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
  • 312 F 130/25 involved the respondent’s representative.
  • The brief was found to be AI-generated and freely fabricated.
  • The court called it Berufsrechtsverstoß, a professional misconduct violation.
  • Cologne District Court in Cologne, Germany.
  • The incident date given on the page is July 2, 2025.
Reprimanded 2025-07-01
A legal brief included claims not from the cited case and evidently invented by AI; the court issued a clear reprimand.
Cologne court July ruling on AI-generated claims · court in Cologne
“Counsel must refrain from making such remarks in the future, as they impede the judicial process, mislead non-specialist readers, and severely harm the reputation of the constitutional state and especially the legal profession.”
posteo.de ↗
The file →
  • Cologne court matter involving an attorney.
  • The brief included claims that did not come from the cited case and were generated by AI.
  • The court issued a clear reprimand.
  • Court in Cologne, Germany.
  • July of the prior year; court said the conduct violated the Federal Lawyers’ Act.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.