legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
858
Incidents tracked
265
Incidents in 2026
$2,417,608
In fines, where reported
214 of 858 report an amount

The curve

Incidents per month

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

Apr 2025 Sep 2026

Charting 450 of 858 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 151 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 251 Caught, not sanctioned 199 Warned 125 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 56 Filing dismissed 37 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1
Outcome unclear
An unregistered barrister misled the court by including AI hallucinations in her submissions.
BCP v A Mother · Family Court
regulationandcomplianceoffice.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Matter involved an unregistered barrister who held herself out as a lawyer
  • The representative included AI hallucinations in court submissions
  • The court found no deliberate intent to mislead but expressed serious concern
  • Family Court [2026] EWFC 71 (B) (England and Wales)
  • 2026 judgment emphasizing that courts view AI hallucinations as serious even if unintentional
Reprimanded ChatGPT 2026-08-24
The court issued a formal public reprimand after a lawyer submitted court filings containing false quotes and misrepresented cases generated by ChatGPT.
Michael L. Ruiz v. Magellan Financial & Insurance Services (2) · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · AZ
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Michael L. Ruiz v. Magellan Financial involved a lawyer who used ChatGPT to generate legal submissions.
  • Counsel filed briefs containing false quotes and misrepresented case law created by ChatGPT.
  • The court issued a formal public reprimand against the lawyer.
  • The decision occurred in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
  • The formal reprimand was ordered on August 24, 2026.
Fined $2K 2026-08-21
A Florida state appeals court sanctioned an attorney with a $1,500 fine and bar referral for submitting briefs containing at least 46 AI-hallucinated citations.
Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association · Kenneth H. Keefe · Second District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida · FL
“Because the bulk of attorney Keefe's legal argument in the offending filings is based on hallucinated authority, it is obvious to us that generative AI was not merely attorney Keefe's 'supplemental research tool,' as he claims, but his primary or only one.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Board of Regents v. Wilson, 365 So 2d 213
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Capital Standard LLC v. US Bank; attorney Kenneth H. Keefe (Keefe Law Firm PA) sanctioned.
  • Keefe submitted court briefs replete with at least 46 hallucinated legal citations produced by generative AI.
  • Imposed a $1,500 fine, a Florida Bar referral, and ordered Keefe to pay opposing counsel's attorney fees.
  • Second District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida (Panel led by Judge Susan H. Rothstein-Youakim).
  • Keefe ignored an initial show-cause order and failed to apologize, claiming he did not know AI could produce bogus results.
Fined
Two lawyers representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell were fined for filing court documents containing more than two dozen AI-hallucinated case citations.
Mike Lindell defamation lawsuit · U.S. District Court
socialistproject.ca ↗
The file →
  • Two lawyers representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell were sanctioned.
  • The attorneys filed court documents that included over two dozen hallucinated cases.
  • The court imposed a monetary fine for violating federal rules requiring well-grounded legal claims.
  • The decision was issued by Judge Nina Y. Wang in federal court.
  • The judge found that fake AI-generated cases fail the requirement that court claims be well-grounded in law.
Warned Strongsuit 2026-08-20
Plaintiff's counsel filed a joint claim construction brief containing AI-generated errors, but the court declined to impose Rule 11 sanctions after counsel promptly disclosed the mistakes.
Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Products Inc. et al. · U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware · DE
“The Court expects that these events and this Opinion shall serve as a cautionary warning and learning experience for counsel moving forward.”
legaltech.fyi ↗
The file →
  • Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Prods. Inc. involved plaintiff's counsel using generative AI.
  • Counsel used the AI tool Strongsuit to draft a brief containing erroneous proposed claim constructions.
  • Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves issued a warning but declined to impose sanctions.
  • The matter was heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • Counsel took full responsibility and prioritized candor, prompting the court to issue a warning instead of sanctions.
Fined $14K 2026-08-20
A lawyer voluntarily repaid $14,500 in adverse costs after submitting court filings containing an AI-fabricated case citation.
Full Standard Properties, LLC v. SJ 6070, LLC · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Full Standard Properties v. SJ 6070 involved a lawyer who submitted an AI-fabricated case citation.
  • Counsel included a fabricated case law citation in court filings.
  • The lawyer voluntarily agreed to pay $14,500 in adverse costs.
  • The proceeding took place in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
  • The outcome was recorded on August 20, 2026.
Fined $5K
The court imposed $5,000 in sanctions against an attorney for submitting 23 fabricated authorities across five filings.
Deutsche Bank v. LeTennier · New York Appellate Division · NY
mondaq.com ↗
The file →
  • In Deutsche Bank v. LeTennier, an attorney was sanctioned for submitting AI-fabricated authorities.
  • The filings contained 23 fabricated authorities across five separate submissions.
  • The court imposed $5,000 in monetary sanctions.
  • The ruling was issued by the New York Appellate Division.
  • The court applied a multi-factor framework to evaluate sanctions for AI-generated fabrications.
Caught, not sanctioned Gemini
Michael Cohen provided fake cases from Google Bard to his attorney, which were filed, but the judge declined to sanction due to a lack of bad faith.
United States v. Cohen · Michael Cohen · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
layer3labs.io ↗
The file →
  • The Cohen matter involved Michael Cohen and his attorney.
  • Cohen gave his lawyer fake cases generated by Google Bard (now Gemini), which were subsequently filed in court.
  • Judge Jesse Furman declined to impose sanctions after finding no bad faith by Cohen.
  • The matter was handled in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  • The decision was issued in 2024 regarding citations created by Google Bard/Gemini.
Outcome unclear
Assistant City Attorney Jalen Harris resigned following court sanctions for using fake AI-generated citations.
Jalen Harris · Jalen Harris · HI
h0credjek5.andaluzadealuminio.com.es ↗
The file →
  • Assistant City Attorney Jalen Harris resigned following sanctions.
  • Harris used fake AI-generated citations in court filings.
  • Sanctions were imposed, leading to the attorney's resignation.
  • The matter involved the Hawaii Supreme Court in Hawaii.
  • The incident highlights growing judicial scrutiny over AI-generated legal briefs.
Fined $3K ChatGPT 2026-08-18
The court excluded an expert report after previously fining plaintiff's counsel $3,000 for relying on dozens of ChatGPT and Claude AI-fabricated citations.
Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. · Jocelyn Stewart · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · WA
“The court concluded that the expert’s “multiple hallucinated citations ‘shatter … his credibility with this Court.’””
nwsidebar.wsba.org ↗
The file →
  • LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. involved unnamed plaintiff's counsel.
  • Counsel used ChatGPT and Claude to build a citation table containing dozens of inaccurate citations across five filings.
  • The court fined counsel $3,000 under Rule 11 and later excluded an expert's report entirely.
  • The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma).
  • Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright excluded the expert report on August 18, 2026, following the July fine.

Showing 81–90 of 858.

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