legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
101
Incidents tracked
31
Incidents in 2026
$386,941
In fines, where reported
14 of 101 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 60 of 101 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 17 Claude 2 CoCounsel 2 LEAP 2 AI-assisted legal software 1 ChatGPT-4 1 Copilot 1 GPT-3.5 1 Gemini 1 Legal Genius 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 101 incidents. Clear filters

Referred to the bar Claude 2025-08-15
A lawyer filed submissions citing four non-existent cases based on Claude AI research, and Judge Gerrard ordered personal costs and referred the conduct.
JNE24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1314 · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
“Legal principles are not simply slogans which can be affixed to submissions without context or analysis.”
mpslaw.com.au ↗
The file →
  • JNE24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship involved a lawyer whose submissions cited four cases.
  • The citations came from Claude AI research and the cases did not exist or did not support the propositions.
  • Judge Gerrard ordered the lawyer to pay costs personally and referred the conduct to the regulatory body.
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).
  • 2025-08-15; the court declined to reproduce the citations to avoid contributing to case hallucinations.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-08-14
An Arizona federal judge imposed sanctions including revocation of pro hac vice status and mandatory state bar notification for submitting fabricated case citations.
Mavy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · Maren Ann-Miller Bam · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · AZ
“The Court does not take this action lightly.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Brown v. Colvin
  • Wofford v. Berryhill
  • Hobbs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
cronkitenews.azpbs.org ↗
The file →
  • Mavy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration; attorney Maren Ann-Miller Bam was sanctioned.
  • Her Social Security appeal brief included AI-generated fabricated, misleading, or unsupported citations.
  • Judge Alison Bachus sanctioned her and ordered notice to the three judges named in the fake opinions.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona; federal court in Arizona.
  • Aug. 14, 2025; the article says 12 of 19 cited cases were fake and mentions ChatGPT-generated hallucinations.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-08-12
A barrister filed ChatGPT-drafted grounds with a fictitious Court of Appeal authority and was found to have attempted to mislead the tribunal and referred to the BSB.
MS (Bangladesh) · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“attempted to mislead”
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • MS (professional conduct: AI generated documents) is the named matter.
  • ChatGPT-drafted grounds cited a fictitious Court of Appeal authority.
  • The barrister was referred to the Bar Standards Board.
  • The court was the Upper Tribunal (IAC).
  • Promulgated 12 August 2025; the barrister produced further unverified AI output after a short adjournment.
Referred to the bar 2025-08-07
Counsel submitted misleading citations, false quotes, and fabricated case law, leading to a state bar referral and costs order.
Pineda v. Campos · CA Arizona · AZ
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Pineda v. Campos involved Husband's appellate counsel.
  • Counsel provided misleading citations, false quotes, and fabricated case law.
  • Referred to the State Bar for investigation and awarded costs to prevailing party.
  • Arizona Court of Appeals (State).
  • Decided August 7, 2025.
Referred to the bar $1K Copilot 2025-07-29
The attorney filed papers with AI-generated case summaries and misleading citations, and the court fined him $1,000 and referred him to the Attorney Grievance Committee.
Idehen v. Stoute-Phillip · Innocent Chinweze · New York trial court · NY
“The judge, Kimon C. Thermos, called the excuse an “incredible and unsupported statement.””
nysba.org ↗
The file →
  • Idehen v. Stoute-Phillip; the attorney for the landlord
  • Papers included cites to real cases that did not support the propositions stated and AI-generated summaries
  • The court imposed a $1,000 fine and referred the attorney to grievance authorities
  • New York trial court
  • Counsel first said he used Microsoft Copilot and did not read the cases cited
Referred to the bar $100K ChatGPT 2025-07-23
Attorneys submitted five ChatGPT-fabricated citations in discovery motions, resulting in public reprimand, disqualification from the case, and state bar referral.
Frankie Johnson v. Jefferson S. Dunn et al. · William Cranford, Matthew Reeves, and William Lunsford · United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · AL
“"failing to prevent AI hallucinations in legal filings"”
dailyjournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Johnson v. Dunn involved attorneys William Cranford, Matthew Reeves, and William Lunsford.
  • Reeves inserted 5 fabricated citations generated by ChatGPT into two discovery motions without verifying them.
  • The court ordered a public reprimand, disqualification from the case, and referral to the state bar.
  • The case was decided in the Northern District of Alabama.
  • The sanction order was issued on July 23, 2025, finding the conduct tantamount to subjective bad faith.
Referred to the bar 2025-07-01
Turner was accused of citing an AI-generated imaginary case in filings seeking reinstatement of his law license, and the board asked the court to strike those filings.
Royce David Turner · Royce David Turner · Iowa Supreme Court · IA
axios.com ↗
The file →
  • Royce David Turner was targeted in a 2025 disciplinary dispute over reinstatement filings.
  • The board said one filing contained at least one AI-generated citation to a case that does not exist or did not support the point.
  • The Iowa Supreme Court was asked to strike multiple recent filings.
  • This was an Iowa state-court disciplinary matter involving the Iowa Supreme Court.
  • The page says the imaginary case was cited in three separate filings.
Referred to the bar Legal Genius 2025-06-30
The court referred the submission of AI-hallucinated case authorities to the Legal Practice Council for disciplinary investigation.
Northbound Processing (Pty) Ltd v South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator and Others (2025/072038) [2025] ZAGPJHC 661 · Gauteng Division of the High Court · South Africa
“such conduct is unacceptable”
golegal.co.za ↗
The file →
  • Northbound Processing (Pty) Ltd v South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator.
  • Practitioners submitted AI-hallucinated case authorities to the court.
  • Referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation into potential professional misconduct.
  • South African court.
  • The court treated the submission of fabricated authorities as potentially crossing into professional misconduct.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.