legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
6
Incidents tracked
0
Incidents in 2026
$0
In fines, where reported
0 of 6 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 1 of 6 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 6 CoCounsel 1 Gemini 1 Google AI 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 1–6 of 6 incidents involving ChatGPT. Clear filters

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.
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.
Outcome unclear ChatGPT
Two barristers attempted to rely on fake cases generated by ChatGPT in their submissions to the court.
Mata v Avianca 22-cv-1461(PKC)
“"Many harms flow from the submission of fake [judgments]. The opposing party wastes time and money in exposing the deception. The Court's time is taken from other important endeavors. The client may be deprived of arguments based on authentic judicial precedents. There is potential harm to the reputation of judges and courts whose names are falsely invoked as authors of the bogus opinions and to the reputation of a party attributed with fictional conduct. It promotes cynicism about the legal profession and the…judicial system. And a future litigant may be tempted to defy a judicial ruling by disingenuously claiming doubt about its authenticity."”
burges-salmon.com ↗
The file →
  • In Mata v Avianca, two barristers sought to rely on AI-generated fake cases.
  • The barristers presented fabricated case law created by ChatGPT.
  • The article does not specify a sanction type or amount.
  • The incident occurred in a US federal court, with Judge P. Kevin Castel presiding.
  • The incident date is not specified, but ChatGPT was the AI tool used, and Judge Castel emphasized the seriousness of submitting fake judgments.
Outcome unclear ChatGPT
Mr. Sauve filed a new federal complaint using ChatGPT and Claude that was described as a fake case littered with hallucinated citations in violation of court rules.
Sauve · Mr. Sauve · federal court
nytimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Mr. Sauve filed a new federal complaint.
  • The pleading used ChatGPT and Claude and was described as a fake case.
  • The page does not state any sanction or amount.
  • The court is identified only as federal court.
  • No date or judge name is given; the article says the complaint had hallucinated citations.
Outcome unclear ChatGPT 2025-11-19
A lawyer relied on ChatGPT, resulting in fabricated legal citations and misrepresented case law in court.
ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:4814 · Rechtbank Noord-Nederland
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:4814 involved an unnamed attorney in the Netherlands.
  • The attorney used ChatGPT, leading to 1 fake case, 1 fake reference, and 1 misrepresented case.
  • No specific sanction outcome was specified in the entry.
  • Decided in the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland in the Netherlands.
  • Issued November 19, 2025; ChatGPT identified as the source.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.