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
Fined $3K 2025-01-01
Lawyers at Morgan & Morgan were sanctioned, and the drafting attorney was fined $3,000 while his temporary bar admission was revoked.
Morgan & Morgan · Morgan & Morgan
developmentcorporate.com ↗
The file →
  • Morgan & Morgan lawyers were sanctioned in 2025.
  • The drafting attorney was fined $3,000 and had his temporary bar admission revoked.
  • The sanction was a monetary fine plus revocation of temporary admission.
  • Court and jurisdiction are not named on the page.
  • 2025; the page identifies Morgan & Morgan as the largest personal injury firm in the U.S.
Warned 2025-01-01
An employee used a generative AI platform for Authority responses, including hallucinated cases and incorrectly cited authorities, and the Authority issued a reminder to check AI output.
QTR v BXD · Employment Relations Authority
simpsongrierson.com ↗
The file →
  • QTR v BXD involved an employee in the Authority process
  • The responses contained hallucinated legal cases and incorrect citations
  • The Authority issued a reminder, not a monetary penalty
  • Employment Relations Authority, New Zealand
  • 2025; the AI use also involved confidential and personal workplace information
Warned 2025-01-01
A lawyer used AI to prepare written documents citing cases that did not exist, and the Full Court said this breached the duty not to mislead the court.
Helmond & Mariya (No 2) · Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
“Artificial intelligence is a tool that carries with it risks as well as opportunities. Its use must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained”
kennedypartnerslawyers.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Helmond & Mariya (No 2) involved a lawyer who used AI to prepare written documents.
  • The documents cited cases that did not exist.
  • The Full Court emphasized the duty not to mislead the court and high ethical obligations on lawyers.
  • Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
  • 2025; the page quotes the President of the King's Bench Division on AI oversight.
Referred to the bar 2025-01-01
A paralegal used AI to prepare a summary of argument and list of authorities with non-existent cases, and the lawyers who failed to check it were referred to the regulator.
Mertz & Mertz (No 3) · Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
kennedypartnerslawyers.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Mertz & Mertz (No 3) involved a paralegal using AI to prepare court materials.
  • The summary of argument and list of authorities included authorities that did not exist.
  • The paralegal was fired, and the lawyers who did not verify the work were referred to the local regulator.
  • Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
  • 2025; the article says the lawyers also had to pay the other party's costs.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-01-01
A barrister cited a false case generated by ChatGPT and the Upper Tribunal referred the barrister to the BSB after the citation was not checked.
MS (Bangladesh) (Professional Conduct: AI Generated Documents) · Upper Tribunal
5essex.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • MS (Bangladesh) (Professional Conduct: AI Generated Documents) involved a barrister.
  • The barrister cited a false case generated by ChatGPT and failed to check its authenticity.
  • The Upper Tribunal referred the barrister to the BSB.
  • Upper Tribunal, location not stated on the page.
  • The article says the tribunal applied Ayinde guidance and the false citation came from ChatGPT.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-01-01
A party's submissions included a non-existent case, showing hallucinated references can slip into court filings when AI outputs aren't verified.
Luck v Secretary, Services Australia · Federal Court of Australia Full Court
lexisnexis.com ↗
The file →
  • Luck v Secretary, Services Australia involved a party's submissions.
  • The page says a non-existent case was included in the submissions.
  • No sanction is described on the page.
  • Federal Court of Australia Full Court, Australia.
  • 2025; cited as a stark reminder that hallucinated references can reach the record.
Warned 2025-01-01
A lawyer relied on three nonexistent cases and one misstated case, and the court ordered submissions on why she should not be held in contempt.
Ko v. Li · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
“Irrespective of issues concerning artificial intelligence, counsel who misrepresent the law, submit fake case precedents, or who utterly misrepresent the holdings of cases cited as precedents, violate their duties to the court.”
calgarydefence.com ↗
The file →
  • Ko v. Li involved another lawyer.
  • She cited three nonexistent cases and one wrong case in written and oral submissions.
  • The court ordered contempt-response submissions, not a stated fine.
  • Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario.
  • 2025 ONSC 2985; the court warned that fake precedents violate duties to the court.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2024-12-30
A representative pasted chatbot-supplied fake Supreme Court and Madras High Court citations into the tribunal record; the order was recalled within a week.
Buckeye Trust v. PCIT · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru bench · KA
medianama.com ↗
The file →
  • ITAT Bengaluru bench matter
  • An order cited four non-existent judgments from unverified ChatGPT use
  • The bench recalled the order; no formal sanction is stated
  • Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru
  • December 2024; the citations were traced back to ChatGPT
Filing dismissed 2024-12-01
A married couple in Dublin filed error-strewn submissions after relying on AI-generated legal material, and Judge David Nolan threw out the submission.
Dublin repossession case · High Court
“The general public should be warned against the use of generative AI devices and programs in matters of law.”
businessplus.ie ↗
The file →
  • A married couple in Dublin were the parties in the case.
  • They used AI-linked material that misread legal terms and legislation in a repossession dispute.
  • Judge Nolan threw out the submission entirely.
  • The order was from the High Court in Ireland.
  • Dec. 2024; the judge warned against using generative AI in matters of law.

Showing 821–830 of 857.

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