legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
32
Incidents tracked
2
Incidents in 2026
$0
In fines, where reported
0 of 32 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 8 of 32 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 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 32 incidents involving ChatGPT. Clear filters

Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A lawyer filed a brief with fabricated case law invented by ChatGPT, and the court sanctioned him after the error was uncovered.
ChatGPT Legal Case Incident
aihealthcarecompliance.com ↗
The file →
  • The page names "The ChatGPT Legal Case Incident" but gives no caption or lawyer name.
  • A lawyer submitted legal filings containing fabricated case law invented by ChatGPT.
  • The court sanctioned him after the error was uncovered.
  • No court, judge, date, or sanction amount is given on the page.
  • The page says Stanford HAI provides detailed analysis of the case.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Two lawyers filed a ChatGPT-generated brief with fabricated court opinions and quotes, and a judge sanctioned them.
Two lawyers sanctioned in 2023
miamidadebar.org ↗
The file →
  • Two lawyers were sanctioned in 2023.
  • They filed a brief generated by ChatGPT with fabricated court opinions and quotes.
  • The page says a judge sanctioned them, but gives no amount.
  • No court, judge, or location is identified on the page.
  • The page cites ChatGPT and warns it can ‘hallucinate’ and be wholly inaccurate.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Michael Long filed RTKL appeals and court papers with fabricated case citations, and the Borough challenged the filings in county court.
Michael Long · Michael Long · Northampton County Court of Common Pleas · PA

Cases that don't exist

  • Grove v. OOR
  • Pennsylvania State Education v. Commonwealth
  • IN RE S.S., 651 A.2d 174

+5 more

bathborough.org ↗
The file →
  • Michael Long was the requestor in the Bath Borough RTKL dispute.
  • He submitted legal filings and appeals containing fictitious or irrelevant citations.
  • The page reports no sanction order against him, only that the Borough challenged his filings.
  • The matter was in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania.
  • The article says Long used AI and even bragged about using ChatGPT.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A law school intern used ChatGPT for legal research, and an early-draft motion-to-dismiss opinion with fake quotes and misstated outcomes was withdrawn.
Julien Xavier Neals opinion · Julien Xavier Neals · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
“In doing so, the intern acted without authorization, without disclosure, and contrary to not only chambers policy but also the relevant law school policy.”
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Julien Xavier Neals, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
  • A law school intern used ChatGPT and the opinion misstated case outcomes and used fake quotes.
  • The opinion was withdrawn; no sanction is stated on the page.
  • District of New Jersey; federal court.
  • Neals said the intern acted without authorization, without disclosure, and contrary to chambers and law school policy.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Michael Cohen gave his lawyer AI-generated citations, and fake cases ended up in a real court filing.
Michael Cohen matter · Michael Cohen · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“the attorneys’ actions were “embarrassing and certainly negligent.””
medium.com ↗
The file →
  • Michael Cohen and his lawyer were involved.
  • AI-generated citations were given to the lawyer and filed in court.
  • The page says they got sanctioned, but gives no order details.
  • No court, judge, or location is named on the page.
  • ChatGPT is identified as the tool used.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Rose Lawyers drafted a will with AI-assisted legal citations; the page does not say any sanctions were imposed.
Re Walker [2025] VSC 714 · Rose Lawyers · Victorian Supreme Court
heirsandsuccesses.com ↗
The file →
  • Re Walker [2025] VSC 714 involved Rose Lawyers drafting the will.
  • The page discusses AI-assisted preparation and verification risks.
  • No sanction or penalty is described on the page.
  • Victorian Supreme Court, Victoria.
  • May 2024 guidelines and a discussion of ChatGPT/Google Gemini appear in the article.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Relator’s expert used ChatGPT to draft an expert report with fabricated CMS testimony and bogus citations, and defendants moved to sanction counsel and seek disqualification.
United States ex rel. Khoury v. Mountain West Anesthesia, LLC · U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada · NV
“if fines and public embarrassment were effective deterrents, there would not be so many cases to cite.”
texaslawbook.net ↗
The file →
  • United States ex rel. Khoury v. Mountain West Anesthesia, LLC; relator’s counsel was at issue
  • An expert report used ChatGPT and contained fabricated CMS testimony, invented manuals and miscited regulations
  • Defendants moved for sanctions, fee shifting and disqualification; no sanction order is stated on the page
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, federal court in Nevada
  • Aug. 13 motion; the page says the misconduct may lead to disqualification and dismissal
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Counsel was said to have filed a letter brief with fabricated AI citations, and Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro dismissed the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
LaPaglia v. Valve Corp. · S.D. Cal. · CA

Cases that don't exist

  • Bassett's Adm'r v. Cunningham's Adm'r, 50 Va. 684
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • LaPaglia v. Valve Corp. involved petitioner's counsel.
  • Valve said counsel submitted a letter brief with AI-fabricated citations.
  • Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro dismissed the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
  • S.D. Cal., federal court in California.
  • The page says the counsel had been recently sanctioned by an arbitrator; ChatGPT was used only in a law-clerk check.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A practitioner filed a submission quoting a fictional Court of Appeal judgment generated by ChatGPT, and the judge said it wasted public resources.
LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia · Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal · QLD
“the case simply does not exist”
nicholeslaw.com.au ↗
The file →
  • LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia; a practitioner was involved.
  • A written submission quoted a fictional Court of Appeal judgment generated by ChatGPT.
  • No sanction is stated on the page; the judge said it wasted public resources.
  • Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Queensland.
  • 2025; the judge said 'the case simply does not exist' and 'caused a significant waste of public resources.'
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
An attorney used ChatGPT to draft a brief that cited made-up cases, and the resulting case was later recognized as fabricated.
Varghese v. China Southern Airlines

Cases that don't exist

  • Varghese v. China Southern Airlines
zdnet.com ↗
The file →
  • Varghese v. China Southern Airlines involved an attorney who used ChatGPT to prepare a legal brief.
  • The brief contained legal cases that did not actually exist.
  • The page does not name a sanction in this incident.
  • The article says the problem case was fabricated by ChatGPT.
  • The page gives no judge, court, or sanction date for this incident.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.