legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
86
Incidents tracked
30
Incidents in 2026
$86,945
In fines, where reported
5 of 86 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 49 of 86 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 13 CoCounsel 1 Eve 1 Gemini 1 Lexis+ AI 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 81–86 of 86 incidents. Clear filters

Reprimanded 2025-01-01
A Victorian solicitor was sanctioned for using AI in a court case and presenting false citations, with restrictions placed on his practising certificate.
In re Vincent J. Sullivan · a solicitor in Victoria · Federal Court of Australia
attwoodmarshall.com.au ↗
The file →
  • In re Vincent J. Sullivan; a solicitor in Victoria was sanctioned.
  • He used AI in a court case and presented false citations.
  • Restrictions were placed on his practising certificate, including revoking principal status.
  • Federal Court of Australia.
  • 2025; the article calls it an Australian-first and says the court required AI disclosure.
Reprimanded 2025-01-01
A solicitor filed hallucinated AI-generated family law authorities and was disciplined by the Victorian Legal Services Board.
Handa & Mallick [2024] FedCFamC2F 957 · a solicitor in Handa & Mallick · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
open.cx ↗
The file →
  • Handa & Mallick involved a disciplined solicitor
  • The solicitor submitted hallucinated authorities generated by AI
  • The Board barred him from trust money and unsupervised practice for two years
  • Victorian Legal Services Board
  • 2025; the page identifies the matter as an Australian family law case
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.
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.
Reprimanded 2024-01-01
A lawyer filed a list of authorities that did not exist, and the court varied his practising certificate and imposed supervised practice.
Dayal · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
kennedypartnerslawyers.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Dayal involved a lawyer who submitted a list of authorities to the court that did not exist.
  • The court treated the filing as a serious accuracy failure in court documents.
  • His practising certificate was varied, he could not act as a principal lawyer or handle trust money, and he had to do supervised practice for two years.
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
  • 2024; the article says practitioners remain personally responsible for the accuracy of documents they file.
Reprimanded ChatGPT 2023-11-22
Attorney Zachariah Crabill received a 90-day suspension after filing fabricated ChatGPT citations in a custody case and lying to the judge about their origin.
People v. Crabill · Zachariah C. Crabill · Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Colorado · CO
“In November 2023, a Colorado disciplinary judge approved a suspension of one year and one day, with 90 days to serve, for violations including competence, diligence, and candor to the tribunal.”
llms-for-lawyers.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Zachariah Crabill filed court documents containing fake legal citations.
  • The fake citations were generated using ChatGPT, and Crabill initially blamed an intern.
  • Crabill was suspended for a year and a day, with 90 days served and the rest stayed on probation.
  • Adjudicated by Colorado's presiding disciplinary judge.
  • The disciplinary sanction was handed down in November 2023.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.