legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
125
Incidents tracked
50
Incidents in 2026
$4,000
In fines, where reported
1 of 125 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 73 of 125 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 19 Copilot 5 AI-assisted legal software 2 ChatGPT-4o 1 Claude 1 CoCounsel 1 Lexis+ AI 1 Strongsuit 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 125 incidents. Clear filters

Warned 2026-03-01
Two Quinn Patton partners filed briefs with fake AI-generated case-law quotes, and Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher ordered them to explain the hallucinations.
Quinn Patton filings in U.S. District Court for Maryland · Donald Quinn and Katherine Patton / Quinn Patton · U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland · MD
“attorneys are not entitled to a second bite at the apple”
thedailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
  • Quinn Patton / Donald Quinn and Katherine Patton were scrutinized for five briefs with bogus AI-generated quotes.
  • The filings contained fake case-law quotes and hallucinations.
  • Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher ordered explanations for the hallucinations.
  • U.S. District Court for Maryland in Baltimore, Maryland.
  • March 2026; Gallagher said her concerns extended to the entire firm.
Warned 2026-02-27
The trial court relied on non-existent, AI-generated precedents in ruling on objections to an Advocate Commissioner’s report, and the Supreme Court issued notice to examine the consequences.
Gummadi Usha Rani and another v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao and another · Trial Court Judge · Supreme Court of India · AP
“"We take cognisance of the trial court deploying AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments and seek to examine its consequences and accountability as it has a direct bearing on the integrity of the adjudicatory process,"”

Cases that don't exist

  • Subramani v. M. Natarajan, (2013) 14 SCC 95
  • Chidambaram Pillai v. SAL Ramasamy, (1071) 2 SCC 68
  • Lakshmi Devi v. K. Prabha, (2006) 5 SCC 551

+1 more

verdictum.in ↗
The file →
  • Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao involved trial-court reliance on fake precedents.
  • The defendants said the cited authorities were non-existent and fabricated.
  • The Supreme Court issued notice and directed the trial court not to proceed on the basis of the report.
  • Supreme Court of India; notice issued in New Delhi.
  • Decided 2026-02-27; the page says the trial court used AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments.
Warned 2026-02-24
After incorrect ECLI numbers were withdrawn in a tenancy case, a cantonal judge at the Oost-Brabant court ordered a lawyer to explain by submission the suspected AI use.
Cantonal judge raises alarm over possible AI use · Oost-Brabant court
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in a tenancy case was ordered to explain suspected AI use.
  • Incorrect ECLI numbers were withdrawn from the filing.
  • The court ordered an explanation, which is a warning-like response.
  • Oost-Brabant court.
  • 24 February 2026; the judge went a step further than a reprimand.
Warned ChatGPT 2026-02-22
Three lawyers received a warning and two had to take a mandatory course after citing non-existent judgments generated by ChatGPT in court filings.
First disciplinary measures for lawyers · Judges in Arnhem, Rotterdam, and Groningen
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
  • Three lawyers were disciplined.
  • They cited non-existent judgments generated by ChatGPT.
  • The sanctions were a warning and mandatory course, with no amount stated.
  • Judges in Arnhem, Rotterdam, and Groningen.
  • 22 February 2026; the page says this was the first disciplinary measure.
Warned 2026-02-17
Counsel filed a matter where all cited precedents were found to be non-existent, and the Supreme Court of India publicly flagged the filings.
Matter before Justice Dipankar Datta · Supreme Court of India
““All precedents cited never existed,” the Chief Justice said, underlining the gravity of the issue.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Mercy vs. Mankind
organiser.org ↗
The file →
  • A matter listed before Justice Dipankar Datta was singled out by the Chief Justice.
  • The court said all precedents cited by counsel were non-existent.
  • The court issued a warning, not a monetary sanction.
  • Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
  • Feb. 17, 2026; Chief Justice Surya Kant said some lawyers had started using AI for drafting.
Warned 2026-02-13
Plaintiff's counsel filed briefs with one non-existent case and three false quotes from real cases; the court warned that further synthetic citations would warrant sanctions, but neither side requested sanctions.
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. All Season Power LLC, et al. · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“At the very least, the duties imposed by Rule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely.”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. All Season Power LLC; Plaintiff's counsel
  • Briefs included one non-existent case and three non-existent quotes from real cases
  • No sanctions requested; court warned further synthetic citations would warrant them
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
  • Decided Feb. 13; Magistrate Judge Stephanie Christensen said Rule 11 requires attorneys to confirm authorities
Warned 2026-02-13
Petitioners' counsel cited and relied on what the court said appeared to be a fabricated Tenth Circuit case, and the court warned counsel about it.
Petitioners' counsel · Petitioners' counsel
ca10.washburnlaw.edu ↗
The file →
  • Petitioners' counsel was warned by name in the document.
  • Counsel cited and relied on what appeared to be a fabricated Tenth Circuit case.
  • The court issued a warning, not a monetary sanction.
  • The document is dated 2026-02-13.
  • The page does not name the fake citation, the judge, or any AI tool.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.