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 2025-01-16
Two elderly litigants in person faced contempt concerns over fabricated citations, but the court declined to commit them, narrowly and reluctantly.
Olsen v Finansiel Stabilitet A/S · High Court of England and Wales
“narrowly and somewhat reluctantly”
searchthe.law ↗
The file →
  • Olsen v Finansiel Stabilitet A/S is the named case.
  • The matter involved two elderly litigants in person and fabricated citations.
  • The court did not commit them for contempt.
  • The court was the High Court.
  • Decided 16 January 2025; the article says the restraint was narrow and reluctant.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-01-06
Thomas W. King’s brief was flagged for apparent AI-hallucinated citations, and the judge ordered it corrected and refiled without imposing sanctions at the hearing.
South Side Area School District et. al v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission · Thomas Breth and Thomas W. King III / Thomas More Society · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · PA
““When I read the brief that was signed by three attorneys from your firm, I had a problem,” he told King and fellow lawyer Thomas E. Breth. “I read what I believe to be artificial intelligence hallucinations.””

Cases that don't exist

  • Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Labor and Industry
wesanews.org ↗
The file →
  • South Side Area School District et. al v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission; Thomas W. King and his firm were scrutinized.
  • The 50-page October filing was said to contain quotes that did not exist or were miscontextualized.
  • No sanction was imposed in the hearing; King was told to correct and refile the brief.
  • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania.
  • Dec. 12, 2025 article; Judge Matthew Wolf said he believed the brief contained AI hallucinations.
Filing dismissed ChatGPT 2025-01-01
The court dismissed a damages claim after the plaintiff's ChatGPT-assisted complaint relied on inaccurate or non-existent legal bases.
AI-written lawsuit dismissed by the court · Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu
“the statement of claim having been drafted entirely with the assistance of ChatGPT.”
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
  • AI-written lawsuit dismissed by the court; the plaintiff
  • The complaint was drafted entirely with ChatGPT and used inaccurate or non-existent legal bases
  • The court dismissed the claim as unfounded
  • Wrocław, Poland
  • 2025; the court said responsibility for the content rested with the plaintiff
Reprimanded 2025-01-01
A Victorian solicitor was sanctioned for using AI in a court case and presenting false citations, with restrictions placed on his practising certificate.
In re Vincent J. Sullivan · a solicitor in Victoria · Federal Court of Australia
attwoodmarshall.com.au ↗
The file →
  • In re Vincent J. Sullivan; a solicitor in Victoria was sanctioned.
  • He used AI in a court case and presented false citations.
  • Restrictions were placed on his practising certificate, including revoking principal status.
  • Federal Court of Australia.
  • 2025; the article calls it an Australian-first and says the court required AI disclosure.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2025-01-01
The appellant filed written submissions with six inaccurate cited decisions and one apparently fictitious case; the court ignored the authorities and denied costs.
NCR v KKB, 2025 ABKB 417 · Alberta Court of King’s Bench
“Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court. Unchecked, it can lead to the miscarriage of justice.”
hayherlee.com ↗
The file →
  • NCR v KKB, 2025 ABKB 417 involved a self-represented mother.
  • Her written submissions cited six inaccurate decisions and one apparently fictitious case.
  • The court denied costs and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
  • The decision was from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench.
  • The court inferred possible AI-generated content and quoted Zhang v Chen about fake cases.
Referred to the bar $47K 2025-01-01
A solicitor’s office used AI to prepare a Summary of Argument and List of Authorities, and the Full Court referred the legal representatives to professional bodies.
Mertz & Mertz (No 3) · Ms G; Mr AX KC; Mr AY · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
bnlaw.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Mertz & Mertz (No 3) involved the appellant’s legal representatives.
  • A paralegal used AI to draft the original documents without the solicitor’s knowledge.
  • The Full Court referred the conduct to the relevant professional bodies.
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
  • The court said the solicitor did not identify which AI program had been used.
Filing dismissed 2025-01-01
An appeal against strike-off listed 27 non-existent authorities, which the judge found had not been checked, leading to grounds of appeal being struck out.
Bandla v SRA · a solicitor in Bandla v SRA · High Court of Justice, Administrative Court
definely.com ↗
The file →
  • Bandla v SRA; a solicitor was sanctioned
  • The filing involved 25 non-existent AI-generated authorities
  • The court ordered over £24,000 in costs
  • High Court of Justice, Administrative Court, England and Wales
  • [2025] EWHC 1167 (Admin); the page does not name the AI tool
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-01-01
Michael Fourte submitted court filings with AI-fabricated quotations and citations and was sanctioned.
Michael Fourte · Michael Fourte
cmr.berkeley.edu ↗
The file →
  • Michael Fourte was sanctioned in 2025.
  • He filed court papers filled with AI-fabricated quotations and citations.
  • The page does not state the sanction type or amount.
  • The court and location are not named on the page.
  • He later filed another motion, also written with a large language model, repeating the same mistakes.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-01-01
A self-represented litigant filed materials with AI-hallucinated case law, and the court said inaccurate AI-based filings can draw costs orders.
Wu v. Murray · British Columbia Court of Appeal
“whether the inaccurate representations are made by a lawyer or a self-represented party”
canadianlawyermag.com ↗
The file →
  • Wu v. Murray involved a self-represented litigant, not a named lawyer or firm.
  • The filing included AI-hallucinated case law.
  • The court said inaccurate AI-based filings can be penalized with remedies including costs orders.
  • British Columbia Court of Appeal, British Columbia.
  • 2025; the page cites the case as an example of the court's filing directive, but gives no sanction order date or AI tool.
Reprimanded 2025-01-01
A solicitor filed hallucinated AI-generated family law authorities and was disciplined by the Victorian Legal Services Board.
Handa & Mallick [2024] FedCFamC2F 957 · a solicitor in Handa & Mallick · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
open.cx ↗
The file →
  • Handa & Mallick involved a disciplined solicitor
  • The solicitor submitted hallucinated authorities generated by AI
  • The Board barred him from trust money and unsupervised practice for two years
  • Victorian Legal Services Board
  • 2025; the page identifies the matter as an Australian family law case

Showing 811–820 of 857.

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