legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
37
Incidents tracked
10
Incidents in 2026
$99,597
In fines, where reported
3 of 37 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 24 of 37 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 10 Centient AI 1 LegalAI 1

Counts only incidents where the filing court or the reporting named the tool.

Hall of Shame

All Fined 251 Caught, not sanctioned 199 Warned 125 Referred to the bar 101 Reprimanded 86 Outcome unclear 56 Filing dismissed 37 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1

Showing 1–10 of 37 incidents. Clear filters

Filing dismissed
Defendants' AI-assisted amended defence contained false references, leading the court to strike out the pleadings and award consequential costs.
Klesta Eshja & Hair Creators Salon LLC v Salah Masri & Others · DIFC Court
lawgratis.com ↗
The file →
  • Klesta Eshja & Hair Creators Salon LLC v Salah Masri & Others
  • Defendants filed AI-assisted amended defence containing false references and misleading material
  • Court struck out the problematic pleadings and ordered consequential costs
  • DIFC Court (DIFC CFI 066/2024)
  • Established that litigants cannot avoid procedural responsibility due to AI generation
Filing dismissed 2026-09-03
A registered foreign lawyer was struck from the register after filing submissions and an email containing AI-fabricated legal authorities in his own disciplinary proceedings.
In re Abhishek Kumar · Abhishek Kumar · Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for England and Wales
“This was the first time that a lawyer’s use of artificial intelligence or large language models in legal proceedings had been litigated before the Tribunal”
complexdiscovery.com ↗
The file →
  • Abhishek Kumar of Kim's Law and Rivington Solicitors was struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
  • Kumar submitted two sets of AI-generated documents riddled with fake cases and erroneous citations during his disciplinary proceedings.
  • The tribunal ordered him struck off from the legal profession.
  • The matter was heard before the UK's Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
  • Kumar admitted using AI and cited recklessness, cognitive exhaustion, and ill-health in his defense.
Filing dismissed
Dorthy Nichols, representing herself in an appeal, filed baseless legal citations and the court dismissed her appeal.
Dorthy Nichols · Dorthy Nichols · California court · CA
“Nichols “offered no meaningful explanation” and had filed “made-up” legal citations.”
ajc.com ↗
The file →
  • Dorthy Nichols was the self-represented litigant in the case.
  • She filed baseless and made-up legal citations.
  • The court dismissed her appeal.
  • A California court handled the matter.
  • The article quotes the court saying she offered no meaningful explanation.
Filing dismissed
A self-represented appellant used generative AI to draft material with several fabricated case citations, and the court dismissed the appeal.
Helmod & Mariya (No 2) · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction
shorestonelegal.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Helmod & Mariya (No 2) involved a self-represented appellant husband.
  • He used generative AI to prepare written material and filed several cases as authorities.
  • The court dismissed the appeal; no monetary sanction is stated.
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction.
  • 2025; the court said the cases either could not be located or were not authority for the propositions.
Filing dismissed
A litigant in person used AI-generated authorities to challenge an election result; the High Court dismissed the petition and ordered £19,000 costs.
Reform UK Candidate Case (Worcestershire Election Challenge) · High Court
“an invention, indeed a hallucination, of AI.”
theaccessgroup.com ↗
The file →
  • Reform UK Candidate Case (Worcestershire Election Challenge) involved a litigant in person.
  • He used AI-generated authorities to challenge a local election result.
  • The High Court dismissed the petition and ordered £19,000 costs.
  • The court was the High Court in England and Wales.
  • The page says one cited case supposedly from 1912 did not exist.
Filing dismissed ChatGPT
A worker filed AI-generated WCAT submissions with fabricated cases and policies; WCAT dismissed the appeal and warned of possible costs.
A2501051, 2025 CanLII 97422 · British Columbia Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal
“It appears that the worker’s submission was created, at least partly, with the use of artificial intelligence.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Zhang v. Chen, 2024 BCSC 285
  • Geismayr v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1970, 2025 BCCRT 217
  • AQ v. BW, 2025 BCCRT 907

+1 more

wcblawyers.com ↗
The file →
  • A2501051 at WCAT involved a worker's submission.
  • The worker used AI to prepare arguments for a prohibited action appeal.
  • The submission contained fake cases, incorrect policy, and bad legal arguments.
  • WCAT dismissed the appeal and noted AI-based submissions can lead to costs.
  • The deputy registrar said the submission was partly created with artificial intelligence and cited hallucinated cases.
Filing dismissed
The court found opposition papers cited nonexistent opinions and dismissed the pro se complaint with prejudice.
Meril and Keith Dillard v. CBS Studios, Inc. · Meril and Keith Dillard · Federal court
“Because pro se parties are also bound by the Rule 11 duty to confirm that cited authorities exist and support their propositions, the court dismissed with prejudice, finding amendment would yield “additional unsupported allegations” and more defective filings rather than curing the complaint’s deficiencies.”
completeaitraining.com ↗
The file →
  • Meril and Keith Dillard v. CBS Studios, Inc. was a copyright action.
  • The filings included mischaracterizations, apparently AI-generated images, and an opposition brief citing several nonexistent opinions.
  • The court dismissed with prejudice, treating amendment as futile.
  • Federal court; the page gives no specific judge name or state.
  • The page says pro se parties still must verify authorities under Rule 11.
Filing dismissed $4K
The plaintiff’s attorney filed a response brief with fabricated quotes and a nonexistent decision, and the court dismissed the case without prejudice and referred counsel for discipline.
Alexey Dubinin v. Varsenik Papazian · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · FL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Alexey Dubinin v. Varsenik Papazian involved a lawyer.
  • The filing included fabricated citations and false quotes.
  • The court imposed a costs order of $4,030 and made a bar referral.
  • The court was S.D. Florida, in federal court.
  • Date: 2025-11-21; the AI tool was not identified.
Filing dismissed 2026-07-01
A self-represented litigant used an AI chatbot to generate documents and referenced evidence that could not be produced, leading to the dismissal of his claim.
Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1245 · Mr Ba (self-represented litigant) · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
“AI is not a legal advisor, it owes no duty to the Court or the administration of justice and owes no duty to act in the best interests of [the applicant] or to observe regulatory or ethical standards, including in its engagement with other practitioners and parties.”
tagalliances.com ↗
The file →
  • The case involved Mr Ba, a self-represented litigant, whose claim was dismissed.
  • Mr Ba relied on AI-generated documents and referred to evidence in a 'Submission Letter' that he could not produce.
  • The court dismissed his claim, noting his conduct was a 'pattern of obstruction and prevarication' and an 'abuse of process'.
  • The incident occurred in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
  • The incident date is not specified, and the court inferred that the documents referred to by the AI did not exist.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.