legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
17
Incidents tracked
0
Incidents in 2026
$100,000
In fines, where reported
1 of 17 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 10 of 17 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 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 17 incidents involving ChatGPT. Clear filters

Referred to the bar ChatGPT
A lawyer was referred to a disciplinary regulator after filing two documents that relied on non-existent citations and quotes.
ChatGPT blunder sees lawyer referred to regulator · Disciplinary regulator
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer was referred to a disciplinary regulator.
  • The page says two filed documents relied on non-existent citations and quotes.
  • The sanction was referral; no amount is stated.
  • The article names ChatGPT as the AI tool.
  • Published Dec. 31, 2025; the page gives no case caption or judge quote.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT
Two judicial review applications contained false case citations generated by non-specialist AI tools, and the Tribunal warned that supervisors and signatories risk referral.
R (on the application of Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“Legal professionals are obliged to ensure that legal arguments which are presented to the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal are factually and legally accurate.”
ein.org.uk ↗
The file →
  • R (on the application of Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved two judicial review applications.
  • The grounds and supporting material contained false and non-existent case citations from AI drafting.
  • The Tribunal warned failures to check work are likely to result in referral to the SRA or another regulator.
  • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), UK.
  • Published 2026-02-20; the page says ChatGPT was one open-source AI tool discussed.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT
A solicitor submitted a filing with a fake case name and false citations; the Upper Tribunal said it would have referred him to regulators but for his self-reporting.
Tahir Mehmood Mohammed · Tahir Mehmood Mohammed · Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber
“It matters not how such citation errors come about.”
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Tahir Mehmood Mohammed, a solicitor at TMF Immigration Lawyers, filed false citations.
  • He said he may have used Google AI mode and had also put client material into ChatGPT.
  • The tribunal would have referred him to the IAA and SRA but for self-reporting.
  • Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber; judge Fiona Lindsley.
  • November 2025 decision, published on 24 February 2026; the judge said errors matter regardless of whether they came from a trainee or ChatGPT.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-12-04
Jisuh Lee filed a factum with hallucinated case law and allegedly lied about using ChatGPT; the court referred the matter for criminal contempt proceedings.
Ko v. Li · Jisuh Lee of ML Lawyers · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
““This is a very unusual case and one that may resonate throughout the administration of justice.””
regulayer.com ↗
The file →
  • Ko v. Li involved Jisuh Lee of ML Lawyers in an estate matter.
  • She filed a factum containing AI-hallucinated case law and later admitted using ChatGPT.
  • The court referred the contempt matter to Ontario’s attorney general; no amount was ordered.
  • Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada.
  • Dec. 4 order; Justice Frederick Myers said it was a very unusual case.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-11-27
A barrister used ChatGPT to draft appeal grounds with a false citation and the tribunal reported him to the Bar Standards Board but did not start contempt proceedings.
MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
barcouncil.org.uk ↗
The file →
  • MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a barrister before the Upper Tribunal.
  • He included a false citation and later used ChatGPT to draft the grounds of appeal.
  • The tribunal referred him to the Bar Standards Board but did not initiate contempt proceedings.
  • Court: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), Bangladesh; [2025] UKUT 305 (IAC).
  • Date: 2025-11-27; he did not use Westlaw or Lexis Nexis to check the work.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-11-17
CLP filed judicial-review grounds with bogus authorities and the Upper Tribunal said the author and COLP should expect referral.
R (Munir) v SSHD · Mr. Zubair Rasheed of City Law Practice Solicitors · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“It would be easy to think that this is a case about the naïve use of generative AI, but it is not merely about that; it is principally about supervision and the obligation to ensure that the tribunal is not misled.”
sra.org.uk ↗
The file →
  • R (Munir) v SSHD involved City Law Practice Solicitors and Advocates and Zubair Rasheed.
  • Judicial-review grounds were filed with bogus authorities and incorrect citations.
  • The Upper Tribunal said the conduct should ordinarily be referred to a regulator.
  • Upper Tribunal (IAC), United Kingdom; Judges Lindsley, Keith and Blundell.
  • 17 November 2025; the court stressed supervision failures and mentioned ChatGPT.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-10-29
Adam Hyman filed an AI-generated divorce brief with fake cases and misquotes, and the Appellate Court of Maryland referred him to the Attorney Grievance Commission.
Mezu v. Mezu · Adam Hyman · Appellate Court of Maryland · MD
“The failure to use AI responsibly in legal research raises ethical issues and can result in sanctions when used improperly. It is unquestionably improper for an attorney to submit a brief with fake cases generated by AI.”
thedailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
  • Adam Hyman was the lawyer referred to the Attorney Grievance Commission.
  • He submitted a divorce brief prepared with ChatGPT that contained fake cases and misquotes.
  • The court imposed a referral to the AGC, with no dollar amount stated.
  • The incident was in the Appellate Court of Maryland in Maryland.
  • The opinion was issued Oct. 29, 2025; Judge Kathryn Graeff said attorneys must verify cited authority.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-10-06
A lawyer filed grounds of appeal with at least two non-existent authorities, and the judge ordered the solicitor to show cause why the matter should not be referred to the SRA.
AK v Secretary of State for the Home Department · Upper Tribunal
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • AK v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a lawyer's appeal grounds.
  • The false citations likely came from unchecked generative-AI drafting.
  • The judge directed the solicitor to show cause about an SRA referral.
  • Upper Tribunal, UK.
  • 6 October 2025; the page names ChatGPT as the AI tool.
Referred to the bar ChatGPT 2025-09-18
Barrister Muhammad Mujeebur Rahman cited a non-existent case generated with ChatGPT and was referred to the Bar Standards Board.
Y (China) · Muhammad Mujeebur Rahman · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“We do however conclude that this is a case where referral to a regulator, in this instance the BSB, is most definitely appropriate”
localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Muhammad Mujeebur Rahman was the barrister referred to the BSB.
  • He filed an immigration appeal relying on the bogus case Y (China) generated with ChatGPT.
  • The Upper Tribunal referred him to the Bar Standards Board; no contempt or police action was taken.
  • The court was the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) in the UK.
  • On 2025-09-18, judges said he had not ensured the accuracy of what was placed before the tribunal.
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.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.