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 $2K Claude 2024-11-25
Brandon Monk filed a wrongful-termination brief with fake cases and AI-generated quotes and was fined $2,000 plus ordered to take an AI legal course.
Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. · Brandon Monk · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas · TX
legal.thomsonreuters.com ↗
The file →
  • Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. involved a lawyer who acknowledged using Claude.
  • The lawyer filed a summary judgment response with two fake Fifth Circuit cases and fake quotes in seven others.
  • The court imposed a $2,000 penalty, required a CLE course on generative AI, and ordered notification to the client.
  • The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
  • The sanction was ordered on November 25, 2024, after Claude produced hallucinated legal authority.
Fined $2K ChatGPT 2024-11-04
Judge Fred W. Slaughter imposed $2,000 in sanctions on William Becker Jr. for filing a motion with alleged non-existent case citations and misrepresentations of existing law.
William Becker Jr. · William Becker Jr · US District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“Sanctions were warranted against Becker for “his failure to verify the validity of the AI-generated material, and submitting the AI-tainted Motion to the court,” the judge said.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • William Becker Jr. was sanctioned in the Chris Kluwe-related case.
  • He filed a motion with AI-hallucinated/non-existent citations and misrepresented existing case law.
  • The court imposed $2,000 in sanctions.
  • US District Court for the Central District of California; Judge Fred W. Slaughter.
  • Nov. 4 order; the page says the motion was AI-tainted and Becker was told to show cause.
Reprimanded 2024-10-23
The U.S. Tax Court struck a Pretrial Memorandum containing non-existent case citations generated by AI as a symbolic minimal sanction under Rule 11.
Gary Thomas v. Commissioner · United States Tax Court
“none of the cases referenced in [select] passages quoted above exist as cited.”
sfbbg.com ↗
The file →
  • In Gary Thomas v. Commissioner, petitioner's counsel filed a brief containing fake cases.
  • Petitioner's counsel signed the memorandum without reviewing it after someone else prepared it.
  • The U.S. Tax Court struck the Pretrial Memorandum as a symbolic minimal sanction.
  • The case was heard in the United States Tax Court.
  • On October 23, 2024, the court found the filing violated Rule 11 due to AI hallucinations.
Referred to the bar LEAP 2024-08-27
Counsel submitted unverified AI-generated authorities and was referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board, which later restricted his practice.
In re Dayal · Mr Dayal · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
mpslaw.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Dayal involved Mr Dayal.
  • He tendered a list and summary of authorities that did not exist using an AI research tool in LEAP.
  • Judge A Humphreys referred the conduct to the regulatory body for consideration.
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).
  • 2024-08-27; Mr Dayal did not verify the accuracy of the information.
Referred to the bar 2024-08-13
Plaintiff's counsel submitted fabricated Israeli Supreme Court quotations and was referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration.
Nitzan v. Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd. · Adv. Faris · Magistrate Court
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Nitzan v. Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd. involved Adv. Faris.
  • Attorney submitted fake Supreme Court case citations and misattributed quotes in response to a motion.
  • Court referred the matter to the Legal Department of the Court Administration.
  • Magistrate Court of Israel (Judge Daniel Kirs).
  • Order issued August 13, 2024; attorney denied using AI despite classic hallucination markers.
Warned 2024-08-12
A lawyer cited non-existent cases in written submissions, and the Board disregarded the false citations with no other consequence noted.
Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A. v. Sara Ghassai · Trademarks Opposition Board
“Whether accidental or deliberate, reliance on false citations is a serious matter [see Zhang v Chen, 2024 BCSC 285].”

Cases that don't exist

  • Vivat Holdings Ltd v Menasha Canada Ltd, 2001 FCA 278
  • M & M Meats Shops Ltd v M & M Products Inc, 2000 FCT 396
  • Molson Breweries v John Labatt Ltd, [2000] 3 SCR 890

+1 more

clia.ca ↗
The file →
  • Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A. v Sara Ghassi involved a lawyer citing cases that did not exist.
  • The Board disregarded the fake cases and noted no other consequences.
  • No sanction was imposed beyond disregarding the citations.
  • Trademarks Opposition Board, Canada.
  • 2024 TMOB 150; the Board mentioned possible generative AI but named no tool.
Outcome unclear 2024-07-17
The page lists this as a case where attorneys were sanctioned for citing AI-generated non-existent cases.
United States v. Cohen · S.D.N.Y. · NY
justicespeakersinstitute.com ↗
The file →
  • United States v. Cohen is named in the page’s citation list.
  • It is described as one of several incidents involving briefs with non-existent cases generated by AI.
  • The page gives no sanction details beyond listing the case as an example.
  • The court listed is S.D.N.Y., a federal court in New York.
  • The page gives July 17, 2024, and does not specify the attorney or AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned 2024-07-15
Bluefort’s brief contained mistaken and misleading citations drafted with AI, but Judge Mark Howard said the matter was resolved with no further action.
Windham couple v. contractor (name not given) · Nicole Bluefort · Rockingham County Superior Court · NH
“the court considers the matter resolved and no further action is necessary”
concordmonitor.com ↗
The file →
  • Nicole Bluefort in the Windham couple’s lawsuit
  • AI-drafted briefs contained mistaken, misleading and nonexistent citations
  • No sanction; Bluefort paid just over $5,000 in opposing counsel’s extra time
  • Rockingham County Superior Court, New Hampshire
  • July 15 order; Judge Mark Howard accepted remediation and ended the matter
Reprimanded 2024-03-30
An attorney filed a reply brief with more than 70% fictitious citations, and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals issued a public censure.
In re Willis · an attorney in Dyersburg, Tennessee · Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
faughnanonethics.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Willis; an attorney in Dyersburg, Tennessee was censured.
  • He filed a reply brief in an Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals matter with fictitious citations.
  • The tribunal imposed a public censure.
  • Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, federal tribunal.
  • March 30; the board found more than 70% of the brief's citations were fictitious.

Showing 831–840 of 857.

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