legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
251
Incidents tracked
81
Incidents in 2026
$1,813,310
In fines, where reported
186 of 251 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 139 of 251 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 53 Claude 4 Lexis+ AI 4 Westlaw Precision 4 CoCounsel 3 Copilot 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 Archie 1 ChatOn 1 ClearBrief 1 CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gem 1 Descrybe.ai 1 First Drafts 1 Gemini 1 Ghostwriter Legal 1 Google AI 1 Google Scholar 1 Grok 1 Irys 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

Showing 81–90 of 251 incidents. Clear filters

Fined $8K
Counsel conceded using AI and the court imposed $7,500 sanctions after five filings contained at least 23 fabricated cases.
In re Roisin · New York appellate court · NY
papers.ssrn.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Roisin and counsel were sanctioned in the first New York appellate AI sanctions case.
  • Five filings contained at least 23 fabricated cases after counsel used AI.
  • The court imposed $7,500 in sanctions against counsel.
  • New York appellate court in New York.
  • The page says counsel conceded AI use but does not name the tool.
Fined $250
A pro se filer submitted an AI-drafted brief citing a nonexistent case, and the Brooklyn-based New York state appeals court imposed a $250 sanction.
Brooklyn appeals court sanction of a pro se filer · Brooklyn-based New York state appeals court · NY
law.com ↗
The file →
  • A pro se filer in a Brooklyn appeals matter was sanctioned.
  • He filed an AI-drafted brief containing a nonexistent case citation.
  • The court imposed a $250 monetary sanction.
  • The sanction came from a Brooklyn-based New York state appeals court.
  • The article says the filer’s pro se status was no excuse, but names no AI tool or citation.
Fined $110K
Two attorneys filed briefs with citations to non-existent cases and fabricated quotations, and U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke imposed a $110,000 penalty.
Two attorneys in federal court · U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke
govtech.com ↗
The file →
  • Two attorneys in federal court
  • Briefs cited non-existent cases and fabricated quotations
  • Judge Mark D. Clarke imposed a $110,000 penalty
  • Federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke
  • Date not given; the article identifies the judge and total penalty
Fined $8K
An attorney filed a legal brief with AI-generated fabrications, and the Oregon Court of Appeals imposed an $8,000 sanction.
Oregon Court of Appeals sanctions attorney for AI-generated fabrications in legal brief · Oregon Court of Appeals · OR
bizjournals.com ↗
The file →
  • An attorney was sanctioned in Oregon Court of Appeals.
  • The brief contained AI-generated fabrications in legal citations.
  • The court imposed an $8,000 monetary sanction.
  • The matter was before the Oregon Court of Appeals in Oregon.
  • The page says it was the first such penalty in the state.
Fined $500
The court fined a respondent $500 after a filing contained legal arguments that could not be verified in Oregon case law.
[second Oregon Supreme Court case not named on page] · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
ijpr.org ↗
The file →
  • Oregon Supreme Court case; respondent was sanctioned for a filing.
  • The document referred to legal arguments that could not be verified in Oregon case law.
  • The court imposed a $500 fine and allowed resubmission.
  • Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon.
  • Friday ruling in June 2026; the page does not name the AI tool used.
Fined $6K ChatGPT
The California Supreme Court declined to reconsider a $6,000 sanction leveled against Lipeles Law Group for its misuse of generative artificial intelligence.
Lipeles Law Group sanctions appeal · Lipeles Law Group · California Supreme Court · CA
“the worst example of misconduct by a lawyer that I think I’ve ever seen since I’ve been on the bench.”
law.com ↗
The file →
  • Lipeles Law Group was sanctioned for AI misuse.
  • The firm misused generative artificial intelligence in its court filings.
  • The court imposed a $6,000 monetary sanction.
  • The matter was handled by the California Supreme Court.
  • The California Supreme Court declined to reconsider the penalty in September 2026.
Fined
A self-represented party relied on cases that did not exist or could not be found, and the Authority awarded increased costs.
O’Driscoll v Rehab Co Mobile Limited · Employment Relations Authority
minterellison.co.nz ↗
The file →
  • O’Driscoll v Rehab Co Mobile Limited involved a self-represented party.
  • The party cited cases that did not exist or could not be found.
  • The Authority awarded increased costs.
  • Employment Relations Authority, New Zealand.
  • [2026] NZERA 106; it noted the GenAI Guidelines had already been drawn to the applicant's attention.
Fined
Two lawyers were disciplined for filing briefs with AI hallucinations and barred from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years.
Mississippi disciplinary matter · Northern District of Mississippi · MS
attorneyatlawmagazine.com ↗
The file →
  • Mississippi disciplinary matter; two lawyers were disciplined
  • They submitted briefs with AI hallucinations
  • They were barred from appearing for two years and fined
  • Northern District of Mississippi, Mississippi
  • The article says this happened just before publication and gives no tool name
Fined $3K
Cho filed a reply brief with nonexistent cases and fabricated propositions from generative AI, and the court sanctioned him and struck the brief.
OTG New York, Inc. v. Ottogi America, Inc. · Sukjin Henry Cho · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Magistrate Judge José R. Almonte · NJ
“Mr. Cho has confirmed that he indeed used AI, which provided him with hallucinated case law and propositions that he then incorporated into his reply brief without verification.”
theinternetninja.com ↗
The file →
  • OTG New York, Inc. v. Ottogi America, Inc.; Sukjin Henry Cho was sanctioned.
  • Cho filed a reply brief using AI-hallucinated case law and propositions.
  • The court imposed a $3,000 Rule 11(c) monetary sanction.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; Magistrate Judge José R. Almonte.
  • No AI product was named; the court said the AI provided hallucinated case law without verification.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.