legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
857
Incidents tracked
266
Incidents in 2026
$2,397,608
In fines, where reported
212 of 857 report an amount

The curve

Incidents per month

Last 18 months of published incidents, by the date of the court's order.

May 2025 Oct 2026

Charting 447 of 857 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 147 Claude 9 CoCounsel 8 Copilot 8 Gemini 8 Lexis+ AI 6 AI-assisted legal software 4 Westlaw Precision 4 ChatGPT-4o 2 ChatOn 2 Eve 2 Google AI 2 LEAP 2 Perplexity AI 2 AI Overviews 1 Archie 1 Centient AI 1 ChatGPT-4 1 ClearBrief 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 GPT-3.5 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google Scholar 1 Grammarly 1 Grok 1 Irys 1 Legal Genius 1 LegalAI 1 MX2.law 1 OpenCase 1 Strongsuit 1 vLex Fastcase 1

Counts only incidents where the filing court or the reporting named the tool.

Hall of Shame

All Fined 249 Caught, not sanctioned 198 Warned 124 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 57 Filing dismissed 39 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2025-05-20
Senior lawyer Jisuh Lee showed cause over fake precedent cases in a factum, but she apologized and purged her contempt before the hearing continued.
Ko v Li · Jisuh Lee · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
“to bring home to all lawyers the need to check and not to trust factums [sic] generated by AI or by others”
claytonrice.com ↗
The file →
  • Ko v Li involved senior lawyer Jisuh Lee.
  • Her factum contained fake precedent court cases prepared using ChatGPT.
  • She purged her contempt, so no sanction was imposed.
  • Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
  • 2025-05-20; Justice F.L. Myers said lawyers must check factums generated by AI.
Filing dismissed 2025-05-13
A struck-off former solicitor’s appeal cited 25 nonexistent cases, and the High Court struck out the grounds on its own motion.
Bandla v Solicitors Regulation Authority · High Court
“needs to take decisive action to protect the integrity of its processes against any citation of fake authority.”
searchthe.law ↗
The file →
  • Bandla v Solicitors Regulation Authority was the case caption named on the page.
  • The appeal grounds cited 25 cases that did not exist.
  • Fordham J struck out the grounds of the court’s own motion.
  • The court was the High Court in England and Wales.
  • Decided 13 May 2025; the article says the court acted to protect the integrity of its processes.
Warned 2025-05-07
Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC filed a protest with citations to purported GAO decisions that could not be found, and GAO dismissed it with an AI-related warning.
Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC · Government Accountability Office
“wastes the time of all parties and GAO”
centrelawgroup.com ↗
The file →
  • Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC was dismissed after filing questionable citations.
  • The protest included citations to purported GAO decisions that could not be found.
  • GAO dismissed the protest and issued its first apparent AI-related warning about sanctions.
  • Government Accountability Office; federal bid protest decision.
  • May 7, 2025; GAO linked the problem to unverified AI drafting.
Fined $31K CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 2025-05-06
Attorneys filed a brief with fabricated AI citations, failed to fix them, and were ordered to inform their client and pay $31,100 in legal fees.
Lacey v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. · K&L Gates LLP and Ellis George LLP · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions … only to find that they didn’t exist. That’s scary.”
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Lacey v. State Farm involving law firms Ellis George and K&L Gates.
  • Brief incorporated hallucinated authorities from CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, and Gemini.
  • Sanctioned $31,100 ($26,100 in special-master fees plus $5,000 fine).
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Special Master Wilner).
  • Dated May 6, 2025; K&L Gates included an unverified AI outline provided by co-counsel.
Outcome unclear 2025-05-06
A pro se litigant submitted filing with fake citations in the D. Colorado court.
Harris v. Take-Two Interactive Software · D. Colorado · CO
aivortex.io ↗
The file →
  • A pro se litigant in Harris v. Take-Two Interactive Software.
  • The pro se litigant used fake citations.
  • The sanction type and amount are not recorded.
  • The incident occurred in the D. Colorado court, federal jurisdiction, Colorado.
  • The incident date is 2025-05-06, and the case involved fake citations.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-05-01
Marc Gunnarsson filed tribunal submissions using an AI chatbot that invented case law, but the judge was lenient and no sanction is reported.
Marc Gunnarsson · Marc Gunnarsson · tax tribunal
jmc-legal.com ↗
The file →
  • Marc Gunnarsson in a tax tribunal dispute
  • He used an AI chatbot to prepare submissions with invented case law
  • The judge was lenient and no sanction is reported
  • Tax tribunal, England
  • May 2025; the cited fake cases were Patel v HMRC, Ali v HMRC, and Kamran v HMRC
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-04-29
Both parties in an appeal filed briefs with fabricated citations to non-existent OLG decisions, but the page does not say what sanction, if any, followed.
Oberlandesgericht Celle · Higher Regional Court of Celle
noxtua.com ↗
The file →
  • Oberlandesgericht Celle was an appeal in which both sides used fabricated case citations.
  • The briefs cited non-existent OLG decisions.
  • The page does not report any sanction imposed in this incident.
  • Court: Higher Regional Court of Celle; jurisdiction/state not given on the page.
  • Date: 2025-04-29; the page highlights professional negligence and AI-generated legal research without verification.
Fined Google Scholar 2025-04-22
Massar Briggs Law filed court documents with hallucinated footnotes; the court declined referral but ordered indemnity costs.
Murray on behalf of the Wamba Wemba Native Title Claim Group v State of Victoria · Massar Briggs Law · Federal Court of Australia · VIC
“Justice Murphy said it was likely that the false document citations came from using generative AI, which had the capacity to "fabricate" or "hallucinate" information.”
lawfuel.com ↗
The file →
  • Massar Briggs Law and principal lawyer Jason Briggs were involved in a native title determination.
  • A junior solicitor used AI software that fabricated citations for historical and anthropological reports.
  • The court ordered Massar Briggs Law to pay indemnity costs.
  • The matter was heard in the Australian Federal Court before Justice Bernard Murphy.
  • Justice Murphy chose to publish the order as a warning about the risks of generative AI in legal practice.
Referred to the bar 2025-04-02
Attorney Felipe Millan filed a brief with hallucinated cases from a freelancer and the court upheld a referral to the state bar for sanctions.
Dehghani v. Castro · Felipe Millan · D.N.M. · NM
““Mr. Millan’s primary grievance is that [the Judge] did not appropriately weigh his good intentions.”
thomsonreuters.com ↗
The file →
  • Dehghani v. Castro involving an immigration attorney.
  • Attorney bought a brief from a freelance writer containing generative AI fabrications.
  • Fined, required to attend CLE, and ordered to self-report to state bar authorities.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.
  • Dated April 2, 2025; court established that outsourcing drafting does not absolve signature duties.

Showing 791–800 of 857.

Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.