legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
151
Incidents tracked
26
Incidents in 2026
$542,786
In fines, where reported
50 of 151 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 151 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 53 Caught, not sanctioned 32 Warned 19 Referred to the bar 17 Reprimanded 13 Filing dismissed 10 Outcome unclear 6 Suspension 1

Showing 1–10 of 151 incidents involving ChatGPT. Clear filters

Fined $3K ChatGPT
Walters filed papers with hallucinated citations; the court sanctioned him for the fake authorities.
Park v. Kim · Mark Walters · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · NY
“The opinion is short and direct.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Matter of Bourguignon v. Coordinated Behavioral Health Servs., Inc., 114 A.D.3d 947 (3d Dep’t 2014)
aiunderstanding.org ↗
The file →
  • Park v. Kim; Mark Walters was sanctioned
  • He filed briefs containing hallucinated legal citations
  • $3,000 monetary fine
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, New York
  • The page links the misconduct to ChatGPT-generated fake citations
Reprimanded ChatGPT
An Oklahoma Supreme Court reprimanded an attorney for submitting legal motions containing AI-generated fake case citations.
Lawrence Wheeler · Lawrence Wheeler · Oklahoma Supreme Court · OK
“the careless use of generative artificial intelligence … damages the integrity and credibility of the legal system.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Cummings v. Cimarron Elevator Co.
  • Hawkins v. Linhart
oklahoman.com ↗
The file →
  • An unnamed attorney was reprimanded by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
  • The attorney submitted legal motions containing AI-generated fabrications.
  • The sanction imposed was a formal public reprimand.
  • The matter was handled by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
  • The reprimand occurred in May (year not specified); the court warned AI misuse damages legal integrity.
Reprimanded ChatGPT
The court reprimanded an attorney for filing a murder appeal brief containing hallucinated police testimony generated by ChatGPT.
State of New Mexico v. Manuel Sifuentes · L. Helen Bennett · New Mexico Supreme Court · NM
threads.com ↗
The file →
  • State v. Sifuentes involved defense attorney L. Helen Bennett.
  • Bennett used ChatGPT to draft a brief containing fabricated police testimony.
  • The New Mexico Supreme Court issued a formal public reprimand.
  • The ruling was handed down by the New Mexico Supreme Court.
  • The court noted ChatGPT invented testimony not in the actual trial record.
Fined $5K ChatGPT 2026-09-14
Attorney Stephen D. Aarons was held in direct contempt and fined $5,000 after using ChatGPT to draft a murder appeal that contained fabricated witnesses and testimony.
State v. Samuel J. Garcia · Stephen D. Aarons · New Mexico Supreme Court · NM
“So either you have buried your head in the sand ... and that’s an intentional choice to be uninformed, or you took a gamble, and neither of those are consistent with the code of conduct.”
yahoo.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Stephen D. Aarons was sanctioned by the court in connection with his representation of Oscar Renee Sandoval.
  • Aarons used ChatGPT to draft an appeal brief that fabricated four witnesses, invented testimony, and misrepresented legal authorities.
  • The court held Aarons in direct contempt, fined him $5,000, struck his briefs, barred him from appearing, and referred him to the Disciplinary Board.
  • The decision was handed down by the New Mexico Supreme Court in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
  • The sanction order was issued on September 9, 2026, after Aarons acknowledged relying on ChatGPT output without verifying it against the record.
Outcome unclear ChatGPT
Two lawyers submitted non-existent judicial opinions with fake citations created by ChatGPT and continued defending them when questioned, resulting in sanctions.
Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C. · Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“the law firm of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C. … abandoned their responsibilities when they submitted non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations created by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT”
dailycaller.com ↗
The file →
  • Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C. lawyers were sanctioned by a New York federal judge.
  • The attorneys submitted non-existent court cases and citations generated by ChatGPT.
  • The court imposed sanctions after the firm continued defending the fake cases.
  • The case took place in New York federal court.
  • A June 2023 order noted the firm abandoned its responsibilities by using ChatGPT fabrications.
Reprimanded ChatGPT
Zachary Larsen was handed a stayed indefinite suspension, two years of supervised probation, and a public reprimand for submitting fake AI-generated citations to the court.
Zachary Larsen · Zachary Larsen · Minnesota Supreme Court · MN
webstat.net ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Zachary Larsen was disciplined by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
  • Larsen used ChatGPT to draft a motion that contained six hallucinated, fake case citations.
  • The court issued an stayed indefinite suspension, public reprimand, and 2 years of probation.
  • The decision was handed down by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Minnesota.
  • The court's ruling in December 2023 noted Larsen showed reckless disregard for the truth.
Fined $1K ChatGPT
The 10th Circuit ordered attorney Kusmin Linda Amarsingh to pay $1,000 for submitting a legal filing containing fake case citations generated by ChatGPT.
Kusmin Linda Amarsingh · Kusmin Linda Amarsingh · U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit · CO
coloradopolitics.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Kusmin Linda Amarsingh submitted fake case citations generated by artificial intelligence.
  • The attorney used unverified citations generated by ChatGPT in a legal filing.
  • The court ordered the lawyer to pay $1,000 to the opposing side as a financial penalty.
  • The sanction was ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver.
  • The three-judge panel noted that the attorney had expressed remorse for relying on the tool.
Fined $1K ChatGPT
Richard Bednar filed a brief with fake ChatGPT-generated citations, and the Utah Court of Appeals sanctioned him.
Richard Bednar · Richard Bednar · Utah Court of Appeals · UT
“"here is this case and it supports our position" and the case doesn’t exist.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Royer v. Nelson
  • Wadsworth v. Walmart
  • United States v. Hayes
legal.thomsonreuters.com ↗
The file →
  • Richard Bednar was sanctioned in the Utah Court of Appeals matter.
  • He submitted a brief with fake citations generated by ChatGPT.
  • He was ordered to pay fees, refund client fees, and donate $1,000.
  • Utah Court of Appeals in Utah.
  • The brief included the non-existent case Royer v. Nelson.
Outcome unclear ChatGPT
A lawyer was ordered to notify their client after using ChatGPT to generate three fabricated case citations and one misrepresented case.
Richard Paul Smith v. Verra Mobility Corporation et al. · M.D. Florida · FL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Richard Paul Smith v. Verra Mobility Corporation et al. involved a lawyer.
  • The lawyer used ChatGPT, resulting in fabricated and misrepresented cases.
  • The court ordered the attorney to notify their client.
  • Decided in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
  • Issued on May 1, 2026, following an Order to Show Cause.
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.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.