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 2025-04-01
Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst sanctioned a plaintiff after finding five cited cases did not exist.
Lee Dunst · US District Court for the Eastern District of New York · NY
“The AI-generated fake cases left the court with “no choice but to survey the case law regarding attorney misconduct relating to the use of AI” rather than “resolving a routine matter of civil procedure,””
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst in the Eastern District of New York imposed sanctions.
  • A plaintiff's motion cited five cases that the court found did not exist.
  • The article gives no dollar amount, only that sanctions were issued.
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, New York.
  • April 2025; the order said the court had to address AI misconduct instead of a routine civil procedure matter.
Filing dismissed ChatGPT 2025-04-01
An applicant repeatedly used the term "subornation of perjury," which Judge David Nolan said sounded like AI and denied the judicial review appeal.
Judicial review appeal in Ireland · High Court
“This sounds like something that derived from an artificial intelligence source,”
businessplus.ie ↗
The file →
  • An unnamed applicant was before Judge David Nolan.
  • The applicant repeatedly used a phrase the judge thought came from AI.
  • Judge Nolan denied the judicial review appeal.
  • This happened in the High Court in Ireland.
  • About four months after Dec. 2024; Nolan said it had the hallmarks of ChatGPT or a similar tool.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-03-31
The court found seven of nine cited authorities were non-existent, apparently AI-generated, refused leave to appeal, and referred the matter to the Legal Practice Council.
Mavundla v MEC Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs KwaZulu-Natal and Others · Pietermaritzburg High Court · South Africa
“irresponsible and downright unprofessional”
legal500.com ↗
The file →
  • Mavundla v MEC: Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs KwaZulu-Natal and Others
  • Seven of nine authorities in the applicant’s submissions were found to be entirely non-existent, apparently generated by AI.
  • The court refused leave to appeal and referred the matter to the Legal Practice Council.
  • Pietermaritzburg High Court, South Africa.
  • Judge Bezuidenhout; the article says this was the clearest African example of AI hallucinations contaminating filings.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-03-20
City Attorneys took full responsibility for improper AI use that led to hallucinated case citations after receiving an order to show cause.
Case 2:25-cv-01260-CJB-EJD · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · LA
digitalcommons.law.scu.edu ↗
The file →
  • Case 2:25-cv-01260-CJB-EJD involved City Attorneys taking responsibility for AI misuse.
  • The filing says the improper use of A.I. led to hallucinated case citations.
  • No sanction amount or formal sanction is stated in the excerpt; the order to show cause is mentioned.
  • The court is the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.
  • Filed 2025-03-20; the excerpt gives no AI tool name or judge quotation.
Outcome unclear 2025-03-18
The court rejected the filing of nonexistent legal authority that was produced through an AI tool.
Williams v. Capital One Bank, N.A. · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · DC
holonlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Williams v. Capital One Bank, N.A. involved the submission of fictitious authority
  • Counsel filed nonexistent legal citations apparently produced by an AI tool
  • The court rejected the filing, emphasizing that nonexistent cases are unacceptable
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
  • Order issued on March 18, 2025
Fined $8K 2025-02-25
Senior Judge Walter H. Rice imposed a collective $7,500 sanction, found two attorneys in contempt, and referred them to disciplinary counsel over AI hallucinations.
Kettering Adventist Healthcare v. Sandra Collier, et al. · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio · OH
“the most egregious violations of Rule 11”
compliancehub.wiki ↗
The file →
  • Matter involved two attorneys before Senior Judge Walter H. Rice.
  • Attorneys repeatedly submitted fabricated filings after receiving a prior warning from the court.
  • Court imposed a $7,500 sanction, a contempt finding, and a referral to Ohio disciplinary counsel.
  • Adjudicated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
  • Judge Rice characterized the conduct as the most egregious Rule 11 violations he had seen on the bench.
Fined $5K AI-assisted legal software 2025-02-24
Judge Rankin revoked Rudwin Ayala's pro hac vice admission, fined him $3,000, and fined T. Michael Morgan and Taly Goody $1,000 each for motions citing eight fake cases.
Wadsworth v. Walmart · Rudwin Ayala, T. Michael Morgan, and Taly Goody · U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming · WY
“Blind reliance on another attorney can be an improper delegation of this duty and a violation of Rule 11.”
yahoo.com ↗
The file →
  • Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc. involved attorneys Rudwin Ayala, T. Michael Morgan, and Taly Goody.
  • Attorneys submitted motions in limine citing eight non-existent cases.
  • Fined a total of $5,000 ($3,000 for Ayala; $1,000 each for Morgan and Goody) plus pro hac vice revocation for Ayala.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming.
  • Sanctioned on 2025-02-24 under Rule 11 because a fake opinion is not existing law.
Fined $10K 2025-02-24
Aleshire & Wynder filed a writ-of-assistance application with fake and improper citations, and Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan ordered it to explain why a $10,000 fine should not be imposed.
A&T Ceramic Tile eminent domain lawsuit · Aleshire & Wynder, LLP · Fresno County Superior Court · CA
“Based on these observations, the court determines that legal contentions made by counsel for plaintiff were not warranted by existing law as represented through counsel’s signature and filing of the application,” Kapetan wrote in her Feb. 24 ruling.”
fresnoland.org ↗
The file →
  • A&T Ceramic Tile eminent domain lawsuit; Aleshire & Wynder, LLP.
  • The firm’s Dec. 31 filing contained fake and improper citations, including non-existent case law and a non-existent statute.
  • Judge ordered the firm to show cause why a $10,000 fine should not be imposed.
  • Fresno County Superior Court in Fresno, California.
  • Feb. 24 ruling by Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan; the article says the filing listed three attorneys but was signed by Carrie Raven.
Fined 2025-02-01
Three Morgan & Morgan lawyers were sanctioned after filing motions that cited eight non-existent cases generated by their in-house AI platform.
Morgan & Morgan attorneys · Morgan & Morgan attorneys · federal court
corporatecounselnow.com ↗
The file →
  • Morgan & Morgan attorneys were sanctioned in a federal case.
  • They filed motions with eight non-existent cases generated by their in-house AI platform.
  • The court sanctioned them after finding no reasonable inquiry into the law.
  • The article gives no judge name or exact court location.
  • It says the misconduct occurred in February 2025 and involved Rule 11.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-01-31
A lawyer filed submissions with false citations and quotes generated by ChatGPT, and Judge Skaros referred the conduct to the regulatory body.
Valu v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
“The conduct of the ALR, in filing an application and submissions which contained citations to Federal Court of Australia cases which do not exist and alleged quotes from the Tribunal’s decision which do not exist, falls short of the standard of competence and diligence that the applicant in the substantive proceedings was entitled to expect from his legal representative.”
lawsociety.ie ↗
The file →
  • Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) involved a lawyer referred to the regulatory body.
  • The filings contained false citations and quotes generated using ChatGPT.
  • Judge Skaros referred the lawyer's conduct for consideration.
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).
  • 2025-01-31; the conduct also involved correspondence with the Court without the consent of the other parties.

Showing 801–810 of 857.

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