legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
8
Incidents tracked
5
Incidents in 2026
$59,098
In fines, where reported
3 of 8 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 6 of 8 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 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 3 Referred to the bar 2 Warned 1 Outcome unclear 1 Reprimanded 1

Showing 1–8 of 8 incidents involving CoCounsel. Clear filters

Warned CoCounsel 2026-09-02
A lawyer received a court warning for misrepresenting case law generated using CoCounsel.
Sea Swivel Inc. v. Shuttleslide LLC, et al. · S.D. Florida · FL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Sea Swivel Inc. v. Shuttleslide LLC, et al.
  • A lawyer misrepresented case law in court filings using the AI legal research tool CoCounsel.
  • The court issued a warning to the attorney.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
  • Decision issued on September 2, 2026, involving CoCounsel.
Outcome unclear CoCounsel
A party relied on hallucinated research generated by the specialist legal AI tool CoCounsel.
U.S. v. Farris · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
midwestfrontier.ai ↗
The file →
  • U.S. v. Farris involved hallucinations from a specialized legal AI tool.
  • The court addressed hallucinated citations originating from CoCounsel.
  • Sanction type and amount are not specified in the text.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
  • Highlighted that even specialized legal tools like CoCounsel can hallucinate.
Fined $2K CoCounsel
The Fifth Circuit sanctioned an Arkansas lawyer for filing an AI-generated brief with 21 fictional case citations and other errors.
Arkansas lawyer sanctioned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
bestlawfirms.com ↗
The file →
  • An Arkansas lawyer was sanctioned by the Fifth Circuit.
  • The lawyer filed an AI-generated brief containing 21 fictional case citations and other errors.
  • The sanction type was monetary fine, but the page gives no amount.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; federal appellate court.
  • No incident date is given; the page quotes the court on law-and-technology concerns.
Fined $1K CoCounsel 2026-04-28
A magistrate judge sanctioned Lenden Webb after Webb Law Group filed a brief with a fake citation partly caused by AI use and poor supervision.
Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (2) · Lenden Webb / Webb Law Group · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
vibegraveyard.ai ↗
The file →
  • Hill v. Workday involved Lenden Webb and Webb Law Group.
  • A discovery filing contained a fake citation caused in part by AI use and lack of supervision.
  • The court ordered a $1,001 personal payment and firmwide corrective steps.
  • The sanction came from the Northern District of California.
  • On 2026-04-28, Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang required CLE and circulation of court materials; the page names Westlaw CoCounsel.
Referred to the bar CoCounsel 2026-04-03
Counsel used a Gen AI platform to draft two briefs with fabricated quotations and misstatements, and the court removed him, denied CJA compensation, and referred him out.
United States v. Farris · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
“inexcusable transgressions”
holonlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • United States v. Farris; court-appointed counsel was sanctioned
  • Two briefs drafted with Gen AI contained fabricated quotations and mischaracterized holdings
  • Removal from case, denial of all CJA compensation, and referral
  • Sixth Circuit
  • 2026; the court credited candor and a clean 40-year record but still found inexcusable transgressions
Fined CoCounsel 2026-04-03
The Sixth Circuit sanctioned an attorney after briefs generated by Westlaw’s CoCounsel contained fabricated quotations and misrepresented two real cases.
United States v. Farris · an attorney using Westlaw’s CoCounsel · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · KY
“The court held that citing "real legal authorities", as opposed to hallucinations featuring fictitious cases, did not absolve him.”

Cases that don't exist

  • United States v. Washington
  • United States v. Anthony
align.lawyer ↗
The file →
  • United States v. Farris involved an attorney using Westlaw’s CoCounsel.
  • Briefs generated by the AI contained fabricated quotations and misrepresented the holdings of two real cases.
  • The Sixth Circuit sanctioned the attorney.
  • The court was the Sixth Circuit, federal appellate court.
  • The order was dated Apr. 3, 2026, and involved legal-specific AI.
Referred to the bar $56K CoCounsel 2026-03-31
A lawyer filed documents with fabricated case law, misrepresented case law, and outdated advice, resulting in a reprimand, order to file order in subsequent cases, bar referral, and adverse costs.
Heimkes v. Fairhope Motorcoach Resort Condominium Owners Association, Inc. · S.D. Alabama · AL
aininja.academy ↗
The file →
  • Heimkes v. Fairhope Motorcoach Resort Condominium Owners Association, Inc. involved a lawyer using Cocounsel (Westlaw).
  • The lawyer submitted fabricated case law, misrepresented case law, and outdated advice.
  • The lawyer received a reprimand, an order to file the order in subsequent cases, a bar referral, and $55,597 in adverse costs.
  • The incident occurred in the S.D. Alabama, a federal court.
  • The sanction was issued on March 31, 2026, due to AI-generated legal errors.
Reprimanded CoCounsel 2025-09-05
The court ordered Attorney Cervantes to complete CLE and circulate the decision within her firm after submitting an AI-fabricated citation via CoCounsel.
Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. · Cervantes · N.D. California · CA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. involving Attorney Cervantes
  • Submitted a fabricated case citation generated using CoCounsel
  • Ordered to complete CLE and circulate the judicial decision within her law firm
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. California)
  • Order issued on September 5, 2025; rejected attorney's software glitch explanation
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.