legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
199
Incidents tracked
40
Incidents in 2026
$11,578
In fines, where reported
3 of 199 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 75 of 199 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 32 Gemini 4 Claude 2 Perplexity AI 2 AI Overviews 1 ChatGPT-4o 1 ChatOn 1 Eve 1 Grammarly 1 MX2.law 1 OpenCase 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 199 incidents. Clear filters

Caught, not sanctioned
The First Department declined to impose sanctions after the defendant cited four nonexistent cases.
NewRez LLC v Morton · Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Department · NY
nycourts.gov ↗
The file →
  • NewRez LLC v Morton involved a defendant cited for using four nonexistent cases.
  • The page says the court declined to impose a sanction.
  • No monetary amount was imposed.
  • The court was the First Department of the New York Appellate Division.
  • The page gives no AI tool, date, or quoted judicial language.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Attorney Harp was ordered to produce his ChatGPT history so the court could determine whether he had submitted hallucinated AI quotations.
Attorney Harp · Attorney Harp · United States District Court, Northern District of California · CA
websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Harp was the lawyer under scrutiny.
  • The issue was whether he submitted hallucinated AI quotations to the court.
  • The court ordered him to produce his ChatGPT history.
  • United States District Court, Northern District of California.
  • No sanction amount was stated; the order was to investigate possible AI misuse.
Caught, not sanctioned
A Manhattan big-law firm sent SDNY a letter apologizing for briefs that used fake citations generated by an unnamed AI program, and the court sanctioned the misuse.
In re: [unnamed Manhattan firm letter to SDNY] · a prominent big-law firm in Manhattan · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
lbkmlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • A prominent big-law firm in Manhattan was involved in the SDNY letter.
  • The firm apologized for using fake citations provided by an unnamed AI program.
  • The page does not state a monetary sanction; it describes an apology to the court.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, New York.
  • No date is given; the article says the firm’s review process missed the inaccurate AI citations.
Caught, not sanctioned
The court discussed AI disclosure duties after confronting hallucinations and 'misgroundings' in legal submissions.
Michaelis v Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB · Michaelis · unknown
gerberciano.com ↗
The file →
  • Michaelis v Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB is identified by name in the article.
  • The court addressed hallucinations and 'misgroundings' in AI-assisted legal submissions.
  • No sanction is described in the article for this decision.
  • The court is not identified by name in the article.
  • The article says the case discussed disclosure obligations relating to AI use.
Caught, not sanctioned Gemini
An attorney cited an unrelated Supreme Court precedent and later said they had not properly reviewed it after searching with Google Gemini.
Ulsan District Court matter · an attorney at the Ulsan District Court · Ulsan District Court
koreaherald.com ↗
The file →
  • Ulsan District Court matter; an attorney at the Ulsan District Court
  • The attorney cited an unrelated Supreme Court precedent in a filing
  • The page reports no sanction, only the attorney's later acknowledgment
  • Ulsan District Court, South Korea
  • Published June 14, 2026; the attorney said the search was done using Google Gemini
Caught, not sanctioned
An attorney filed a brief citing a nonexistent Supreme Court precedent and then cited another nonexistent case when the court asked for clarification.
Daegu High Court matter · an attorney handling a case at the Daegu High Court · Daegu High Court
koreaherald.com ↗
The file →
  • Daegu High Court matter; an attorney handling a case there
  • The attorney filed a nonexistent Supreme Court precedent and then another nonexistent case
  • The page reports no sanction, only that the court sought clarification
  • Daegu High Court, South Korea
  • Published June 14, 2026; described in a Korean-language JoongAng Ilbo report
Caught, not sanctioned
The Oregon Supreme Court sanctioned litigants in two cases after AI-generated quotes and citations were filed.
Oregon Supreme Court sanctions two cases · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
bizjournals.com ↗
The file →
  • Two cases were sanctioned by the Oregon Supreme Court.
  • Litigants filed AI-fabricated quotes and citations.
  • The page does not state a specific sanction amount.
  • Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon.
  • The article says the orders were issued last week and were the first of their kind.
Caught, not sanctioned
A plaintiff staffing subcontractor admitted using AI to draft, research, and cite-check its brief, which allegedly included fabricated quotations and a non-existent Texas Supreme Court quote.
A2K Inc. v. Fluor Corp. et al. · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas · TX
joneswalker.com ↗
The file →
  • A2K Inc. v. Fluor Corp. et al.; a plaintiff staffing subcontractor
  • The brief allegedly used generative AI and included fabricated quotations and a non-existent Texas Supreme Court quote
  • No sanction is described in the article; Fluor argued the brief should not get a 'do-over'
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
  • June 18 report cited by the article; AI use was admitted and the brief was tied to a motion to dismiss
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Farah Chalisa said she used ChatGPT for stylistic and grammatical review, and the court discussed the resulting AI-related citation problem.
Salah v. Walmart Inc. · Farah Chalisa · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
media.ca7.uscourts.gov ↗
The file →
  • Salah v. Walmart Inc.; Farah Chalisa
  • Chalisa said she used ChatGPT for stylistic and grammatical review
  • The page does not state any sanction or amount for this order
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  • The page names ChatGPT and says Chalisa did not enter an appearance
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.