Maintained by AI agents, supervised by legal engineers
legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
241
Incidents tracked
54
Incidents in 2026
$2,128,010
In fines, where reported
175 of 241 report an amount

The curve

Incidents per month

Last 18 months of published incidents, by the date of the court's order.

Mar 2025 Aug 2026

Charting 104 of 241 incidents — the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

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

Showing 241 incidents. Clear filters

Fined $2K ChatGPT
Cathleen Siebrecht filed a brief with AI-hallucinated citations and the court sanctioned her.
In re Cathleen Siebrecht · Cathleen Siebrecht · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida · FL
“I absolve the mother of any intention to mislead the court.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Johnson v. City of Detroit, 2024 WL 1234567
peaceforasia.ch ↗
The file →
  • In re Cathleen Siebrecht; attorney Cathleen Siebrecht was sanctioned.
  • She filed a brief containing AI-hallucinated citations.
  • The court imposed a $2,500 monetary fine.
  • U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; federal court in Florida.
  • Date not given on the page; the page links this as an AI hallucination case.
Fined $5K ChatGPT
Jan Tomasik and Daniel Mann filed a brief with bogus citations generated by ChatGPT, and Judge Hardy ordered them removed, referred to the Nevada bar, and fined.
Uprise · Jan Tomasik; Daniel Mann; Cozen O’Connor · Washoe County, Nev., District Court · NV
“This is larger than any of us,”
lawnext.com ↗
The file →
  • Uprise; Jan Tomasik, Daniel Mann, and Cozen O’Connor
  • They filed a brief with bogus legal references generated by ChatGPT.
  • Judge Hardy ordered removal, bar referral, and $2,500 fines each ($5,000 total), then suspended them.
  • Washoe County, Nevada, District Court in Washoe County, Nev.
  • Last May; Hardy said he wanted system improvement and redemption.
Fined $3K ChatGPT
Walters filed papers with hallucinated citations; the court sanctioned him for the fake authorities.
Park v. Kim · Mark Walters · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · NY
“The opinion is short and direct.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Matter of Bourguignon v. Coordinated Behavioral Health Servs., Inc., 114 A.D.3d 947 (3d Dep’t 2014)
natlawreview.com ↗
The file →
  • Park v. Kim; Mark Walters was sanctioned
  • He filed briefs containing hallucinated legal citations
  • $3,000 monetary fine
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, New York
  • The page links the misconduct to ChatGPT-generated fake citations
Fined $10K ChatGPT
A California attorney filed ChatGPT-generated fake case quotes and citations, and the state appeals court fined the lawyer $10,000.
California attorney sanctioned for ChatGPT-generated fake case quotes and citations · state appeals court · CA
ai.plainenglish.io ↗
The file →
  • A California attorney was sanctioned for ChatGPT-fabricated case quotes.
  • The lawyer submitted 21 of 23 quotes that ChatGPT had completely fabricated.
  • The court fined the lawyer $10,000.
  • The sanction came from a state appeals court in California.
  • The page names ChatGPT as the source of the fake citations.
Fined $5K
The court sanctioned attorneys $2,500 each and imposed a six-month suspension for AI-fabricated citations after repeated denials of AI use.
Ninth Circuit's Precedential AI-Hallucination Sanctions · Ninth Circuit
github.com ↗
The file →
  • Ninth Circuit's Precedential AI-Hallucination Sanctions
  • Attorneys used AI-fabricated citations and one denied AI use three times before admitting it.
  • The court imposed $2,500 each plus a six-month suspension, totaling $5,000.
  • The page identifies the court as the Ninth Circuit.
  • The order is described as a published appellate order.
Fined
Lawrence Chang filed a motion with at least six bogus case citations and quotes; Judge Maya Guerra Gamble dismissed the motion and said monetary sanctions were likely.
Lawrence Chang matter · Lawrence Chang · 459th District Court in Travis County · TX
““I’m pinning my sanctions on your signature as a sworn officer of the court,” Gamble of the 459th district court in Travis County said at a hearing.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Lawrence Chang was the lawyer tied to the filing.
  • He cited at least six cases whose supporting statements said something different.
  • Judge Maya Guerra Gamble dismissed the motion and hinted at monetary sanctions.
  • The court was the 459th District Court in Travis County, Texas.
  • The article says Chang blamed bad artificial intelligence.
Fined
Attorneys were fined after filings in the FIFA case contained inaccurate or nonexistent citations that suggested AI misuse.
FIFA case
“but the sheer number of inaccurate or nonexistent citations suggests otherwise.”
reuters.com ↗
The file →
  • FIFA case; attorneys unnamed on the page
  • Filings contained inaccurate or nonexistent citations
  • Court imposed a fine, but the amount is not stated
  • Court and location are not stated on the page
  • Attorneys denied using AI; judge said the citations suggested otherwise
Fined $5K ChatGPT
Schwartz filed a ChatGPT-written brief that cited nonexistent cases, and the court sanctioned him and fined him $5,000.
Steven A. Schwartz · Steven A. Schwartz · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
““I did not comprehend that ChatGPT could fabricate cases,” Schwartz later told the judge.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Martinez v. Delta
  • Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines
  • Varghese v. China Southern Airlines
precedent.com ↗
The file →
  • Steven A. Schwartz filed a ChatGPT-written brief in an airline suit.
  • The brief cited Martinez v. Delta, Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines, and Varghese v. China Southern Airlines.
  • He was sanctioned and fined $5,000.
  • The article places the matter in court in the Southern District of New York.
  • The cited cases did not exist, and Schwartz said he did not comprehend ChatGPT could fabricate cases.
Fined $10K ChatGPT
Two law firms faced sanctions after submitting ChatGPT-generated briefs that contained nine fabricated citations out of 27 total authorities.
ChatGPT-generated briefs
proplaintiff.ai ↗
The file →
  • Two law firms were sanctioned for ChatGPT-generated briefs.
  • Their filings contained nine fabricated citations out of 27 authorities.
  • The page says the sanction was a $10,000 wake-up call.
  • The court and judge are not named on the page.
  • The article gives the fabrication count but no citation strings.
Fined
A District of Arizona court sanctioned plaintiff’s counsel after her opening brief contained fabricated, misleading, or unsupported citations likely caused by AI hallucinations.
Plaintiff’s opening brief sanction order (District of Arizona) · District of Arizona · AZ
“… well over the majority of the citations provided to this court in plaintiff’s opening brief were fabricated, misleading or unsupported.”
kahanafeld.com ↗
The file →
  • District of Arizona order involving plaintiff’s counsel
  • Opening brief contained fabricated, misleading, or unsupported citations
  • Court imposed severe sanctions, including apology letters and pro hac vice revocation
  • Federal court in Arizona
  • September 10, 2025 article; court said most citations were fabricated or unsupported
Fined $2K
Judge Dena M. Coggins sanctioned attorney Sepideh Ardestani for a filing with numerous nonexistent and erroneous AI-generated citations.
Sepideh Ardestani · Sepideh Ardestani · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California · CA
“"submission of a motion with numerous nonexistent and erroneous citations, coupled with her repeated failure to be forthcoming with the court, constitutes conduct that is 'akin to contempt of court,'"”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Sepideh Ardestani was sanctioned in the Eastern District of California.
  • She allegedly used artificial intelligence to generate more than a dozen fictitious case citations in a filing.
  • The court imposed a $1,500 sanction.
  • The case was in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
  • Judge Dena M. Coggins issued the order; the article says it was docketed Tuesday.
Fined $2K
Yolanda Smith-Parker filed a divorce order with made-up citations, and the court criticized her and imposed a $2,500 fine.
Yolanda Smith-Parker · Yolanda Smith-Parker · DeKalb County Superior Court · GA
“The situation was “troubling,” said Judge Ana Keil Lynch.”
ajc.com ↗
The file →
  • Yolanda Smith-Parker was sanctioned in a divorce case.
  • She prepared an order with fabricated legal citations.
  • The court fined her $2,500.
  • DeKalb County Superior Court, Georgia.
  • Judge Ana Keil Lynch called the situation “troubling.”
Fined $6K
Brian G. Brady filed a document with bogus legal citations in a contract-breach case, and Judge Louis Sands fined him $6,500 and ordered AI-education costs.
Brian G. Brady · Brian G. Brady · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia · GA
ajc.com ↗
The file →
  • Brian G. Brady was sanctioned in a federal Georgia case.
  • He admitted a filing had bogus legal citations generated with AI.
  • Judge Louis Sands imposed a $6,500 fine and AI-education costs.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Georgia.
  • The article says Brady apologized and blamed an error by his staff.
Fined $1K
A public defender filed an appellate brief with AI-generated citations, and the Appellate Court of Illinois ordered disgorgement of his fee plus $1,000 in sanctions and a referral.
Illinois public defender · Appellate Court of Illinois · IL
“It was a “perfect storm” of “temptation of AI out there at a time when [he] was busy and trying to meet deadlines.””
vlex.com ↗
The file →
  • Illinois public defender was sanctioned after filing an AI-written appellate brief.
  • Eight cited cases were involved, including five nonexistent ones and three misidentified ones.
  • The court ordered disgorgement of a $6,925.62 fee plus $1,000 in sanctions.
  • Appellate Court of Illinois, Illinois.
  • Page quotes the lawyer calling it a “perfect storm” and says the court referred him to the disciplinary commission.
Fined $10K ChatGPT
An attorney filed AI-enhanced appellate briefs with fabricated citations and quotations; the California Court of Appeal sanctioned him $10,000 and referred him to the State Bar.
[Los Angeles attorney; case caption not named on page] · attorney in Los Angeles · California Court of Appeal · CA

Cases that don't exist

  • Schimmel v. Levin
  • Peake v. Underwood
vlex.com ↗
The file →
  • Los Angeles attorney was sanctioned after filing AI-enhanced appellate briefs.
  • ChatGPT generated fabricated citations and quotations that were filed without reading.
  • The court imposed a $10,000 sanction and referred him to the State Bar.
  • California Court of Appeal, California.
  • Page says the sanction was the highest fine ever issued by a California state court for AI misuse.
Fined $10K
A Los Angeles plaintiff's attorney filed an opening brief riddled with AI-generated fake citations, and the California Second District Court of Appeal fined him $10,000.
Amir Mostafav matter · Amir Mostafav · California Second District Court of Appeal · CA
legalnewsline.com ↗
The file →
  • Amir Mostafav, a Los Angeles plaintiff's attorney, was sanctioned.
  • He submitted an opening brief riddled with AI-generated fake citations.
  • The court imposed a $10,000 fine.
  • The sanction came from the California Second District Court of Appeal in California.
  • The page gives no AI tool name and no quoted judge language.
Fined
A self-represented defendant filed submissions with AI-generated non-existent cases, and the court allowed correction but ordered costs.
Halton (Regional Municipality) v. Rewa et al. · Mr. Rewa · Ontario Superior Court
“one also does not need to be a lawyer to read through a case to verify if it stands for the suggested proposition.”
torkin.com ↗
The file →
  • Halton (Regional Municipality) v. Rewa et al. involved Mr. Rewa, a self-represented defendant.
  • He relied on AI-generated, non-existent cases in his court submissions.
  • The court allowed him to correct his motion but ordered costs.
  • The court was the Ontario Superior Court in Ontario.
  • The article says the judge warned AI-hallucinated case law would not be tolerated and quoted the court on verifying authorities.
Fined $1K ChatGPT
Richard Bednar filed a brief with fake ChatGPT-generated citations, and the Utah Court of Appeals sanctioned him.
Richard Bednar · Richard Bednar · Utah Court of Appeals · UT
“"here is this case and it supports our position" and the case doesn’t exist.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Royer v. Nelson
  • Wadsworth v. Walmart
  • United States v. Hayes
cybernews.com ↗
The file →
  • Richard Bednar was sanctioned in the Utah Court of Appeals matter.
  • He submitted a brief with fake citations generated by ChatGPT.
  • He was ordered to pay fees, refund client fees, and donate $1,000.
  • Utah Court of Appeals in Utah.
  • The brief included the non-existent case Royer v. Nelson.
Fined $10K ChatGPT
A California attorney was fined for filing a state court appeal with fake quotations generated by ChatGPT.
California attorney sanctioned for fake quotations generated by ChatGPT · CA
cybernews.com ↗
The file →
  • A California attorney was sanctioned for an AI-generated filing.
  • The attorney used fake quotations generated by ChatGPT in a state court appeal.
  • The court imposed a $10,000 fine.
  • The matter was in California state court.
  • The page says the fine was issued in September and calls it historic.
Fined $1K ChatOn
The plaintiff’s reply brief used ChatOn to create false case citations, and the court ordered the attorney to pay a $1,000 penalty.
Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp. · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · NY
gtlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp.; the plaintiff’s attorney was penalized
  • The reply brief included numerous case citations created by ChatOn that were false
  • The court ordered a $1,000 penalty
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst found mitigating factors, including remorse and voluntary CLE participation
Fined $5K
David Lutz admitted he used AI and cited a phony case in a Minnesota filing; Judge Christian Sandy fined him and referred him for discipline.
David Lutz matter · David Lutz · Minnesota state court · MN
wral.com ↗
The file →
  • David Lutz was the attorney named in the Minnesota incident.
  • He cited a phony case after using AI and forgot to cross-reference it.
  • Judge Christian Sandy fined him $5,000 and referred him to the state board.
  • The article places the matter in Minnesota state court.
  • The sanction came in July, and the referral was for possible discipline.
Fined
A New York Commercial Division decision in Ader imposed fees after lawyers failed to proofread AI-assisted filings containing fabricated cases or misquoted authorities.
Ader · New York Commercial Division · NY
insidetechlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Ader was a New York Commercial Division incident mentioned by the page.
  • Lawyers submitted AI-assisted filings with fabricated cases or misquoted legal authorities.
  • The court imposed fees.
  • The court was the New York Commercial Division in New York.
  • The page says recent decisions imposed fees after lawyers failed to proofread AI-assisted filings.
Fined
A junior barrister filed a judicial review pleading with five nonexistent authorities, and the court ordered wasted costs and referred the matter to regulators.
Ayinde litigation and a junior barrister · High Court
“the submission of fabricated authorities as “appalling professional misbehaviour””
windowsforum.com ↗
The file →
  • Ayinde litigation and a junior barrister were sanctioned.
  • A pleading in judicial review cited five authorities that did not exist.
  • The court ordered wasted costs and referred the lawyers to regulators.
  • High Court, England and Wales.
  • 2025; the court said the conduct could reflect deliberate fabrication or unverified AI use.
Fined $5K
Judge William S. Stickman IV found Blackburn filed briefs with wholly fabricated quotations and misrepresented authorities linked to generative AI, then imposed sanctions.
Jakes v. Youngblood et al. · Tyrone Blackburn · W.D. Pa. · PA
“Whoever or whatever drafted the briefs signed and filed by Blackburn, it is clear that he, at the very best, acted with culpable neglect of his professional obligations.”
posts.diddydocket.com ↗
The file →
  • Jakes v. Youngblood et al.; Tyrone Blackburn was sanctioned.
  • His briefs contained wholly fabricated quotations and misrepresented authorities.
  • The court imposed a $5,000 sanction and some of T.D. Jakes' attorney's fees.
  • W.D. Pa., federal court in Pennsylvania.
  • Orders issued between June and October 2025; the court linked the filings to generative AI.
Fined $13K ChatGPT
A federal judge sanctioned Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Robert Carey, and Celeste Boyd after briefs in an OnlyFans case contained AI-generated hallucinated citations.
OnlyFans users v. Fenix International Ltd. · Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; Robert Carey; Celeste Boyd · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“He wrote that allowing revisions would unfairly burden defendants who had already responded, noting that the proposed corrections still contained errors.”
complex.com ↗
The file →
  • OnlyFans users v. Fenix International Ltd. involved Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Robert Carey, and Celeste Boyd.
  • Four briefs reportedly contained fabricated or hallucinated legal citations generated through AI tools.
  • Judge Fred Slaughter imposed $10,000 on the firm and Carey, plus $3,000 on Boyd.
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; Seattle-based firm; California federal case.
  • The article says Boyd used ChatGPT to draft and edit sections and failed to independently verify the output.
Fined $20K
Attorney Greta Kemp Martin filed legal memoranda with fabricated case citations and nonexistent quotes, and the court sanctioned her over $20,000 and ordered AI-hallucination CLE.
Greta Kemp Martin sanctions order · Greta Kemp Martin · US District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · MS
“"highly suspcious"”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Greta Kemp Martin was sanctioned.
  • She submitted legal memoranda with fabricated case citations and nonexistent quotes.
  • The court imposed over $20,000 in sanctions and ordered CLE on AI hallucinations.
  • The sanction came from the US District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
  • Judge Sharion Aycock said she was "highly suspcious" that an AI tool generated the made-up authorities.
Fined $500 ChatGPT
Michael Chambers filed a motion containing ChatGPT-generated fake case citations, and the court sanctioned him for the AI-made fabrications.
Arthur v. City of Hartford · Michael Chambers · U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · CT

Cases that don't exist

  • Mati v. City of Hartford
  • Smith v. City of Hartford
  • Johnson v. City of Hartford
nytimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Arthur v. City of Hartford; Michael Chambers was sanctioned.
  • He filed a motion with ChatGPT-generated fake legal citations.
  • The court imposed a $500 monetary fine.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
  • The page says the fake cases came from ChatGPT.
Fined
An attorney filed a brief with citation deficiencies consistent with AI hallucinations, and Judge Alison Bachus sanctioned the attorney.
Arizona Social Security Case · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · AZ
aistandardofcare.com ↗
The file →
  • Arizona Social Security Case; an attorney was sanctioned.
  • The brief was replete with citation-related deficiencies, including fabricated, misleading, or unsupported cases.
  • Judge Alison Bachus sanctioned the attorney.
  • D. Ariz., federal court in Arizona.
  • The page says 12 of 19 cases cited were fabricated, misleading, or unsupported.
Fined
A Commercial Division justice awarded fees under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 against clients and counsel after AI-fabricated citations appeared in a summary-judgment opposition and sanctions opposition.
Ader v. Ader · Commercial Division, New York Supreme Court · NY
“Use of AI is not the problem per se.”
nlrg.com ↗
The file →
  • Ader v. Ader; clients and counsel were sanctioned
  • A summary-judgment opposition contained AI-fabricated citations
  • The court awarded fees under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1
  • Commercial Division, New York Supreme Court, New York County
  • The page says the sanctions motion response contained more than double the number of fake citations
Fined $6K
A New Jersey federal judge sanctioned attorney Leo Maury Gordon for filing a hallucinated AI case citation and ignoring repeated warnings to verify his submissions.
Leo Maury Gordon · Leo Maury Gordon · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Leo Maury Gordon was sanctioned in the D.N.J.
  • He relied on a hallucinated AI case citation in a civil suit accusing Sean Combs and others.
  • The court ordered him to pay $6,000 and self-report to disciplinary authorities.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, New Jersey.
  • Law360 said the judge found he ignored repeated warnings to verify his filings.
Fined $8K
Farivar filed an AI-drafted brief with fabricated quotations, and the Court of Appeal struck the brief and ordered him to pay $7,500.
Shayan v. Shakib · Fahim Farivar · California Court of Appeal, Division One · CA
“It is undisputed that appellant’s attorney, Fahiin Farivar, filed a brief containing numerous fabricated quotations—that is, language falsely attributed to published decisions.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Shayan v. Shakib; Tarzana attorney Fahim Farivar
  • He filed a brief containing fabricated quotations and misrepresented legal authority
  • Court of Appeal struck the brief and imposed a $7,500 monetary sanction
  • California Court of Appeal, Division One
  • Dec. 2, 2025; panel said the sanction reflected time spent verifying citations and Farivar’s refusal to accept responsibility
Fined
The claimant’s barrister filed a submission containing false citations, and the court reduced the claimants awarded costs from £20,000 to £6,500.
Ayinde v Haringey · High Court of England and Wales, Admin Division
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
  • Ayinde v Haringey involved the claimant’s barrister.
  • He filed a submission containing false citations.
  • The court reduced awarded costs from £20,000 to £6,500.
  • High Court of England and Wales, Admin Division.
  • The article says the case drew attention as one of the first major AI-caused problems in England.
Fined $5K
Defense counsel filed a brief and later papers citing 23 fabricated cases, then the New York appellate court imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction.
Joshua A. Douglass · Joshua A. Douglass · New York appellate court · NY
“Defendant’s opening brief cites six cases which do not exist.”
legalethicslawyer.blog ↗
The file →
  • Joshua A. Douglass was sanctioned in a New York foreclosure appeal.
  • He filed a brief and later papers containing hallucinated and fabricated legal authorities.
  • The court imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction.
  • The matter was in a New York appellate court.
  • The opinion says he used AI and that five filings contained at least 23 fabricated cases.
Fined $10K
An attorney filed fabricated case citations and quotations, and the court imposed a total $10,000 sanction.
Mid Cent. Operating Engrs. Health & Welfare Fund v HoosierVac LLC · State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department · NY

Cases that don't exist

  • Mid Cent. Operating Engrs. Health & Welfare Fund v HoosierVac LLC, 2025 WL ...
hinshawlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Mid Cent. Operating Engrs. Health & Welfare Fund v HoosierVac LLC involved an attorney sanctioned for AI-fabricated citations.
  • The filing contained fabricated case citations and quotations.
  • The court imposed a total $10,000 sanction.
  • The court was the State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.
  • The page does not identify an AI tool or provide a quoted judge statement.
Fined
An AI-drafted employee claim cited three phantom Full Bench authorities, and Deputy President World rejected it.
Deputy President World rejected a claim citing three phantom Full Bench authorities · Fair Work Commission
“Deputy President World rejected a claim citing three phantom Full Bench authorities, warning of costs.”
winterconsulting.com.au ↗
The file →
  • AI-drafted employee claim cited three phantom Full Bench authorities.
  • The filing used fabricated case references and was rejected.
  • The page says there was a warning of costs, but gives no amount.
  • Fair Work Commission; location not stated.
  • 2025; the page does not name the AI tool.
Fined $1K
A self-represented litigant filed a factum citing fake authorities, and the ABKB ordered additional costs.
Barrette v. Wevers · Alberta Court of King’s Bench
“"wild goose chase"”
commerciallitigationblog.com ↗
The file →
  • Barrette v. Wevers involved a self-represented litigant.
  • His factum referenced at least three fake authorities, including two fake cases and one fake regulation.
  • The ABKB ordered CA$1,000 per set of respondents in additional costs.
  • The court was the Alberta Court of King’s Bench in Alberta.
  • The ABKB said the litigant sent counsel and the court on a "wild goose chase" and had to "up the ante".
Fined $500
A self-represented litigant filed a factum using AI that referenced three non-existent cases, and the ABCA ordered additional costs.
DJ v. SN · Alberta Court of Appeal
“"more substantial penalties" will follow in future cases of non-compliance with the Notice.”
commerciallitigationblog.com ↗
The file →
  • DJ v. SN involved a self-represented litigant.
  • Her factum admitted using AI and cited three non-existent cases.
  • The ABCA awarded CA$500 in additional costs.
  • The court was the Alberta Court of Appeal in Alberta.
  • The court warned that "more substantial penalties" would follow for future non-compliance.
Fined $15K
A Texas-based attorney filed briefs with citations to non-existent cases on three occasions and was recommended for a $15,000 sanction.
In Re: Rafael Ramirez · Rafael Ramirez · U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore · IN
theindianalawyer.com ↗
The file →
  • In Re: Rafael Ramirez involved a Texas-based attorney licensed in Indiana.
  • He filed briefs containing citations to non-existent cases on three separate occasions.
  • U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore recommended a $15,000 sanction.
  • Federal court matter in Indiana.
  • Last February; the attorney said he relied on generative AI programs and the article says no sanctions have been pursued.
Fined ChatGPT
A Utah attorney filed false ChatGPT-generated citations, including Royer v. Nelson, and the state court of appeals sanctioned the attorney.
Royer v. Nelson · state court of appeals · UT

Cases that don't exist

  • Royer v. Nelson
courtroomsciences.com ↗
The file →
  • A Utah attorney was sanctioned in Royer v. Nelson.
  • The filing contained a nonexistent case and other false citations generated by ChatGPT.
  • The court imposed sanctions; the article does not state the amount.
  • State court of appeals in Utah.
  • 2025; opposing counsel said the material was unverifiable in any legal database.
Fined
Lawyers filed submissions containing fictitious cases and authorities, and the High Court sanctioned them and ordered personal costs.
Ng Yat Chun v. Public Prosecutor · High Court of Singapore
techandjustice.bsg.ox.ac.uk ↗
The file →
  • Ng Yat Chun v. Public Prosecutor; lawyers were sanctioned
  • Submissions used AI and included fictitious cases and authorities
  • The court ordered personal costs against the lawyers
  • High Court of Singapore, Singapore
  • The page says this was one of at least two civil cases in Singapore
Fined ChatGPT
Steven A. Schwartz filed a brief with AI-fabricated cases and quotations, and the court sanctioned the filing.
In re Schwartz · Steven A. Schwartz · federal court
prinz-lawfirm.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Schwartz involved Steven A. Schwartz and AI-fabricated citations.
  • He submitted a brief with made-up cases and quotations.
  • The court sanctioned the filing with a monetary fine.
  • The page says courts in Wyoming, California, Texas, and Pennsylvania have sanctioned similar conduct.
  • It identifies ChatGPT as one of the AI tools that can hallucinate citations.
Fined
A New York attorney and Pennsylvania associated counsel were sanctioned for AI-related filing misconduct.
Lifetime Well, LLC v. IBSPOT.COM Inc. · A New York attorney and the Pennsylvania associated counsel
jlellis.net ↗
The file →
  • Lifetime Well, LLC v. IBSPOT.COM Inc.; two lawyers were sanctioned
  • The page says they were sanctioned for using AI without verification
  • The sanction amount is not stated
  • The page names New York and Pennsylvania but not the court
  • No AI tool, date, or judge quote is provided
Fined $500
Judge Janet C. Hall fined David Stitch $500 after he filed a spurious, computer-generated brief with hallucinated legal citations.
David Stitch · David Stitch · U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · CT
“The court understands that, in issuing this order, it does so in a proverbial new frontier as society begins to grapple with both the power and potential danger of this technology,” Hall wrote at the time.”
courant.com ↗
The file →
  • David Stitch was fined by Judge Janet C. Hall for a computer-generated brief.
  • The brief contained spurious, hallucinated citations in a wage case.
  • The sanction was a $500 monetary fine.
  • U.S. District Court, New Haven, Connecticut.
  • The article says this happened last year; Hall noted courts were confronting 'hallucinated' citations in court papers.
Fined ChatGPT
Steven Schwartz was sanctioned after filing a brief with six AI-generated case citations that were completely fabricated.
Steven Schwartz · Steven Schwartz · S.D.N.Y. · NY
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Steven Schwartz was sanctioned in a 2023 New York case.
  • He submitted a brief with six AI-generated case citations.
  • The page says the citations were completely fabricated.
  • The court imposed sanctions in federal court in the Southern District of New York.
  • The page does not name the AI tool or give the sanction amount.
Fined $66K
Arnold Porter won a ruling for more than $66,000 in attorneys’ fees after the plaintiff filed duplicative motions and fake case citations using AI.
ICANN and Verisign Inc. v. [Chinese plaintiff] · Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“bad faith”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer obtained the fee award in the ICANN/Verisign dispute.
  • The plaintiff repeatedly filed AI-generated fake case citations and duplicative motions.
  • The court awarded more than $66,000 in attorneys’ fees.
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, California.
  • December; the judge said the plaintiff kept filing fake citations even after apologizing.
Fined $1K
The Tenth Circuit fined a Maryland attorney $1,000 and referred the matter after a brief cited nonexistent cases generated with AI.
Maryland attorney referred to disciplinary authorities by the Tenth Circuit · US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
carry.com ↗
The file →
  • A Maryland attorney was sanctioned by the Tenth Circuit.
  • She acknowledged using generative AI to prepare a brief with nonexistent cases.
  • The court imposed a $1,000 fine and referred the matter to disciplinary authorities.
  • US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, federal.
  • March 23, 2026 article; the page does not name the AI tool used.
Fined $12K
The plaintiffs filed pleadings with fabricated citations and misquoted authorities, and the court struck the filings and ordered attorney fees.
Mattox v. Product Innovations Research USA · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma · OK
bestlawfirms.com ↗
The file →
  • Mattox v. Product Innovations Research USA involved the plaintiffs
  • Their pleadings contained fabricated citations and references to nonexistent cases
  • The court struck the filings and ordered more than $11,700 in attorney fees
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
  • Judge Timothy DeGiusti handled the case in Oklahoma
Fined
The self-represented respondent used generative AI in her written argument and cited non-existent cases; the court awarded a small costs award to the claimant.
J.R.V. v. N.L.V. · British Columbia Supreme Court
watsongoepel.com ↗
The file →
  • J.R.V. v. N.L.V. involved a self-represented respondent.
  • She used generative AI to prepare her written argument.
  • It produced citations to non-existent cases.
  • The court made a small costs award payable to the claimant.
  • 2025 BCSC 1137; the respondent apologized and said she did not know AI could generate fake citations.
Fined $2K
An attorney filed a brief citing multiple non-existent cases, and the court imposed a $2,500 sanction.
Texas AI hallucination case · Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas · TX
“violated basic duties of competence and candor as contemplated by the rules governing professional conduct.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Texas AI hallucination case involving an unnamed attorney
  • The lawyer filed a brief with multiple non-existent cases
  • The court imposed a $2,500 sanction
  • Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, Texas
  • The article says the judge found violations of competence and candor
Fined
Nicholas L. Palazzo filed briefs with erroneous and apparently fabricated citations, and the Pennsylvania federal court sanctioned him.
Patricia Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. and BJ’s Wholesale Club · Nicholas L. Palazzo of Defino Law Associates · PA
legal.io ↗
The file →
  • Patricia Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. and BJ’s Wholesale Club
  • Nicholas L. Palazzo submitted briefs with erroneous and apparently fabricated citations
  • The court sanctioned him
  • Pennsylvania federal court
  • The page says the cited cases either did not exist or had major factual errors
Fined $10K
A pro se litigant filed AI-generated briefs with hallucinated cases, quotes, and statements of law, and the court imposed Rule 11 sanctions.
Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois · Chinedu Obi · District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · IL
“Plaintiff’s motion is riddled with AI hallucinations, made up cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006)
  • Andrade v. Arby Concessions, 88 F.4th 1014, 1018 (7th Cir. 2023)
fedcivilprocedure.com ↗
The file →
  • Chinedu Obi in Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois
  • He generated each brief using AI and filed hallucinated cases, quotes, and legal statements
  • Rule 11 sanctions totaling $9,750
  • Northern District of Illinois, federal court in Illinois
  • The court said the filings contained repeated, ongoing hallucinations and wasted time locating nonexistent cases
Fined $8K
An attorney filed a legal brief with AI-generated fabrications, and the Oregon Court of Appeals imposed an $8,000 sanction.
Oregon Court of Appeals sanctions attorney for AI-generated fabrications in legal brief · Oregon Court of Appeals · OR
bizjournals.com ↗
The file →
  • An attorney was sanctioned in Oregon Court of Appeals.
  • The brief contained AI-generated fabrications in legal citations.
  • The court imposed an $8,000 monetary sanction.
  • The matter was before the Oregon Court of Appeals in Oregon.
  • The page says it was the first such penalty in the state.
Fined
A claimant filed a petition with nonexistent precedents allegedly generated by AI, and the Supreme Federal Court found bad faith and ordered double court fees plus referral to the bar.
Supreme Federal Court Claim No 78,890 · Supreme Federal Court
ibanet.org ↗
The file →
  • Supreme Federal Court Claim No 78,890 involved a claimant whose petition cited nonexistent precedents.
  • The petition was found to contain AI-generated nonexistent precedents.
  • The court ordered double court fees and reported the matter to the Brazilian Bar Association.
  • Supreme Federal Court, Brazil.
  • The page says the improper use of AI in court by inventing binding precedents was bad faith.
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
A federal judge fined Lenden Webb for failing to supervise another lawyer at his firm who filed court papers containing AI-fabricated citations.
Lenden Webb · Lenden Webb · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Lenden Webb was sanctioned.
  • Another lawyer at Webb’s firm filed papers with AI-fabricated citations.
  • Webb was fined for failing to supervise that lawyer.
  • The case was in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
  • The article says the underlying filing contained fabricated citations, but it does not name the AI tool or the amount.
Fined $5K
A self-represented plaintiff filed briefs generated using AI with fictitious cases, quotes, and law, and Judge Virginia Kendall struck the motion and sanctioned her $5,000.
Obi v. Cook County · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · IL
“"Carelessness, good faith, or ignorance are not an excuse for submitting materials that do not comply with Rule 11."”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • Obi v. Cook County involved a self-represented plaintiff whose AI-generated filings were sanctioned.
  • She filed a motion and replies riddled with fictitious cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact.
  • Judge Virginia Kendall struck the motion and imposed a $5,000 Rule 11 sanction.
  • The court was the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
  • The page says her prior filing had at least 17 fake cases and that she had exhausted the court's leniency.
Fined $2K
A brief was found to contain phony citations and made-up judicial opinions, and the court ordered a $2,500 payment.
Nate Raymond, US Appeals Court Orders Lawyer to Pay $2,500 over AI Hallucinations in Brief · U.S. appeals court
dc.suffolk.edu ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer was sanctioned in a federal appeals-court matter.
  • The brief was described as full of phony citations and made-up judicial opinions.
  • The court ordered a $2,500 payment.
  • The venue was a U.S. appeals court.
  • The page gives only the Reuters item title and no named attorney, judge, or AI tool.
Fined $2K ChatGPT
An attorney filed a pleading citing at least six nonexistent cases, and Judge Martínez fined him $1,500 and ordered ethics training and bar reporting.
Unnamed New Mexico attorney · unnamed New Mexico attorney · U.S. Magistrate Judge Damian Martínez · NM
“The six cases were fake and likely the handiwork of a ChatGPT or similar artificial intelligence (AI) program’s hallucinations,”
govtech.com ↗
The file →
  • An unnamed New Mexico attorney was sanctioned for fake citations.
  • He filed a pleading with at least six nonexistent cases.
  • Judge Martínez fined him $1,500 and required bar reporting and AI ethics training.
  • U.S. Magistrate Judge Damian Martínez, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
  • Last year; the article says the fake cases were likely from ChatGPT or a similar AI program.
Fined $6K ChatGPT
Debtor’s counsel filed a brief with AI-generated fabricated citations and nonexistent quotations, and the bankruptcy court sanctioned counsel and his firm.
In re Marla C. Martin · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois · IL
““no lawyer should be using … a generative AI product to perform research without verifying results. Period.””
duanemorris.com ↗
The file →
  • Marla Martin bankruptcy case; debtor’s counsel and his law firm were sanctioned
  • Counsel filed a brief with fabricated citations and nonexistent quotations generated by AI
  • The court imposed a $5,500 penalty and required AI-training attendance
  • U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Illinois
  • November 7, 2025 article; the court called the sanction "modest" and warned future violators
Fined $1K ChatGPT
Two New Orleans law department attorneys filed a motion with nine AI-generated fake case citations, and Judge Carl Barbier sanctioned them.
Jalen Harris and James Roquemore · Assistant City Attorney Jalen Harris; Deputy City Attorney James Roquemore · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · LA
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Assistant City Attorney Jalen Harris and Deputy City Attorney James Roquemore were sanctioned in federal court.
  • They filed a January 2026 motion containing nine made-up case citations generated by AI.
  • Judge Carl Barbier ordered Harris to pay $250 and Roquemore $1,000.
  • The case was in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans.
  • Harris said he used ChatGPT to speed research and did not verify the AI-generated cases.
Fined $96K
An Oregon judge found Stephen Brigandi at fault for submitting three documents with 23 hallucinated AI-generated citations and imposed sanctions.
Stephen Brigandi · Stephen Brigandi · Oregon state court · OR
sandiegouniontribune.com ↗
The file →
  • Stephen Brigandi was sanctioned in Oregon state court.
  • He submitted three documents containing 23 hallucinated AI-generated citations.
  • The court imposed $96,000 in sanctions.
  • The judge was an Oregon judge; the article says the matter was in Oregon.
  • The page does not name the AI tool or quote the judge.
Fined
Wright filed briefs with fake cases and fabricated quotations in a discrimination suit against the Phoenix Suns, and Judge Murray Snow ordered her to pay some attorneys’ fees and take ethics training.
Phoenix Suns lawsuit · Sheree Wright · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · AZ
“U.S. District Judge Murray Snow called Wright’s explanation a “convoluted tale.””
azfamily.com ↗
The file →
  • Phoenix Suns discrimination lawsuit against Sheree Wright
  • Wright filed legal briefs with AI hallucinations, including fake cases and quotations
  • Judge ordered her to cover some attorneys’ fees and complete AI ethics training
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona; federal court in Arizona
  • Date not stated; ruling was forwarded to the Arizona State Bar and district and magistrate judges in Arizona
Fined $5K
A Camden County attorney filed a motion with AI-generated fake citations and was ordered to pay $5,000 in sanctions.
Unnamed Camden County attorney sanction · Unnamed Camden County attorney · Camden County court · NJ
nj.com ↗
The file →
  • Unnamed Camden County attorney was sanctioned in a case described on the page.
  • The attorney used artificial intelligence to file a motion with fake citations.
  • The court ordered $5,000 in sanctions.
  • The matter was in Camden County, New Jersey.
  • The page gives no date, judge name, or AI tool.
Fined
A pro se plaintiff filed fictitious AI citations and then gave a false explanation; the court sanctioned her for the Rule 11 breach.
Zhang v. Driscoll · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
“simply not credible”
advocateprakhar.com ↗
The file →
  • Zhang v. Driscoll involved a pro se plaintiff in N.D. Cal.
  • She filed fictitious case citations and blamed 'editing errors.'
  • The court sanctioned her for a Rule 11 violation.
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
  • Jan. 2026; the court found her explanation 'simply not credible.'
Fined $6K
A complainant’s final written submissions cited non-existent cases, and the Employment Relations Authority ordered further costs against the complainant.
Wellington physiotherapy company grievance case · Employment Relations Authority
newsroom.co.nz ↗
The file →
  • The incident arose in a personal grievance case against a Wellington physiotherapy company.
  • Despite reminders, the final submissions cited cases that did not exist.
  • The complainant was ordered to pay $6500 to the business.
  • Court: Employment Relations Authority in Wellington, New Zealand.
  • Date not stated; the article describes it as a case being handled by the Authority.
Fined $5K ChatGPT
Two New York lawyers filed a brief with six fake ChatGPT-created case citations and were fined $5,000.
Two New York lawyers sanction incident · two New York lawyers · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
cnbc.com ↗
The file →
  • Two New York lawyers were the sanctioned attorneys.
  • They submitted a legal brief with six fake case citations created by ChatGPT.
  • The court fined them $5,000.
  • The matter was in federal court in New York.
  • The page says this happened in 2023, and the AI tool was ChatGPT.
Fined $5K ChatGPT
A New York lawyer filed court papers citing fake legal cases generated by ChatGPT, and the judge fined the lawyer and his firm $5,000.
Unknown New York lawyer matter · a New York lawyer · court not named on page · NY
bloomfire.com ↗
The file →
  • A New York lawyer and his firm were fined in court.
  • He filed papers with fake legal cases generated by ChatGPT.
  • The judge imposed a $5,000 fine.
  • The page does not name the court or judge.
  • The article names ChatGPT as the source of the fabricated citations.
Fined $100K
Joanne Couvrette’s lawyers filed briefs with 15 AI-generated fake citations and eight fabricated quotations; Judge Clarke dismissed the claims with prejudice and fined the two lawyers over $100,000.
Joanne Couvrette v. Mark Wisnovsky and Michael Wisnovsky · Kendra Gustitus and the plaintiffs’ legal team · Oregon state court · OR
wealthmanagement.com ↗
The file →
  • Joanne Couvrette’s legal team in the winery-feud case
  • Filed briefs with 15 fake citations and eight fabricated quotations
  • Dismissal with prejudice plus over $100,000 in fines and attorney fees
  • Oregon state court; Judge Clarke
  • May 6, 2026; the page says this may be the largest AI-related sanction ever imposed
Fined $2K Lexis Nexis
Lindsay filed memoranda of law with fabricated citations and was sanctioned $2,500 after the court found she used AI-generated hallucinations.
Jimenez-Fogarty v. Fogarty · Tricia S. Lindsay · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein · NY
“"[C]ourts in this [C]ircuit have repeatedly found that presenting AI-generated hallucinations as valid caselaw constitutes subjective bad faith."”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • Jimenez-Fogarty v. Fogarty; Tricia S. Lindsay was sanctioned.
  • She filed two memoranda of law citing numerous nonexistent cases.
  • The court imposed a $2,500 fine and required notice to her client and other judges.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.
  • The opinion said Lindsay used an AI program and referenced Lexis Nexis AI-driven features.
Fined $8K
Counsel conceded using AI and the court imposed $7,500 sanctions after five filings contained at least 23 fabricated cases.
In re Roisin · New York appellate court · NY
papers.ssrn.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Roisin and counsel were sanctioned in the first New York appellate AI sanctions case.
  • Five filings contained at least 23 fabricated cases after counsel used AI.
  • The court imposed $7,500 in sanctions against counsel.
  • New York appellate court in New York.
  • The page says counsel conceded AI use but does not name the tool.
Fined $250
A pro se filer submitted an AI-drafted brief citing a nonexistent case, and the Brooklyn-based New York state appeals court imposed a $250 sanction.
Brooklyn appeals court sanction of a pro se filer · Brooklyn-based New York state appeals court · NY
law.com ↗
The file →
  • A pro se filer in a Brooklyn appeals matter was sanctioned.
  • He filed an AI-drafted brief containing a nonexistent case citation.
  • The court imposed a $250 monetary sanction.
  • The sanction came from a Brooklyn-based New York state appeals court.
  • The article says the filer’s pro se status was no excuse, but names no AI tool or citation.
Fined $110K
Two attorneys filed briefs with citations to non-existent cases and fabricated quotations, and U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke imposed a $110,000 penalty.
Two attorneys in federal court · U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke
govtech.com ↗
The file →
  • Two attorneys in federal court
  • Briefs cited non-existent cases and fabricated quotations
  • Judge Mark D. Clarke imposed a $110,000 penalty
  • Federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke
  • Date not given; the article identifies the judge and total penalty
Fined $500
The court fined a respondent $500 after a filing contained legal arguments that could not be verified in Oregon case law.
[second Oregon Supreme Court case not named on page] · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
ijpr.org ↗
The file →
  • Oregon Supreme Court case; respondent was sanctioned for a filing.
  • The document referred to legal arguments that could not be verified in Oregon case law.
  • The court imposed a $500 fine and allowed resubmission.
  • Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon.
  • Friday ruling in June 2026; the page does not name the AI tool used.
Fined
A pro se litigant filed a brief with fictitious legal authority, and the court imposed a monetary sanction.
Matter of Julien v Arthur · Appellate Division, Second Department · NY
nycivillaw.blog ↗
The file →
  • Matter of Julien v Arthur involved a pro se litigant sanctioned for fictitious legal authority.
  • The brief contained hallucinated citations and false authority.
  • The court imposed a monetary sanction.
  • Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
  • The page says even one fabricated case citation can constitute frivolous conduct.
Fined $6K ChatGPT
The firm submitted a brief containing generative-AI mistakes and erroneous citations, and a state appellate panel upheld $6,000 in sanctions.
Lipeles Law Group sanctions appeal · Lipeles Law Group · California appellate panel · CA
“the worst example of misconduct by a lawyer that I think I’ve ever seen since I’ve been on the bench.”
law.com ↗
The file →
  • Lipeles Law Group was sanctioned after filing a brief with AI mistakes and erroneous cites.
  • The article says a contract attorney was responsible for the citation errors.
  • The appellate panel upheld $6,000 in sanctions.
  • A California state appellate panel handled the matter.
  • The article says the attorney used a 'premier corporate subscription of ChatGPT'.
Fined $2K
The firm filed a brief containing numerous AI hallucinations, and the New York appeals court ordered it to pay a $2,500 sanction.
Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff · Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff · New York Appellate Division, Second Department · NY
“the law firm's name appeared on the case filing that contained "significant misrepresentations," the court explained.”
law.com ↗
The file →
  • Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff was sanctioned after an attorney filed a brief with AI hallucinations.
  • The filing contained numerous artificial intelligence hallucinations and significant misrepresentations.
  • The court ordered a $2,500 sanction against the firm.
  • The decision came from New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department in Brooklyn.
  • The article says the lawyer’s mistake went against firm policy, but names no AI tool.
Fined
A self-represented party relied on cases that did not exist or could not be found, and the Authority awarded increased costs.
O’Driscoll v Rehab Co Mobile Limited · Employment Relations Authority
minterellison.co.nz ↗
The file →
  • O’Driscoll v Rehab Co Mobile Limited involved a self-represented party.
  • The party cited cases that did not exist or could not be found.
  • The Authority awarded increased costs.
  • Employment Relations Authority, New Zealand.
  • [2026] NZERA 106; it noted the GenAI Guidelines had already been drawn to the applicant's attention.
Fined
Two lawyers were disciplined for filing briefs with AI hallucinations and barred from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years.
Mississippi disciplinary matter · Northern District of Mississippi · MS
attorneyatlawmagazine.com ↗
The file →
  • Mississippi disciplinary matter; two lawyers were disciplined
  • They submitted briefs with AI hallucinations
  • They were barred from appearing for two years and fined
  • Northern District of Mississippi, Mississippi
  • The article says this happened just before publication and gives no tool name
Fined
Four attorneys on both sides filed court papers with AI-generated fabricated legal citations and the federal judge disqualified them, fined them, and barred them from the district for two years.
Withers v. Aberdeen (City) · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · MS
oecd.ai ↗
The file →
  • Withers v. Aberdeen (City) involved four attorneys from both sides.
  • They submitted filings containing AI-generated fabricated legal citations.
  • The judge imposed disqualification, fines, and a two-year practice ban.
  • It was in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
  • The page says the lawyers failed to verify the AI-generated content.
Fined $10K Lexis
Sanders and the law firm filed briefs containing fabricated and/or erroneous legal authority and citations, and the page says sanctions and/or costs were sought or imposed.
Landberg v City of New York · Sanders and the law firm · New York Appellate Division, Second Department · NY
“The Court didn't mince words.”
nycourts.gov ↗
The file →
  • Landberg v City of New York involved Sanders and the law firm.
  • They filed briefs containing fabricated and/or erroneous legal authority and citations.
  • The page mentions sanctions and/or costs, but gives no amount.
  • The court is not identified on the page beyond the case title.
  • No AI tool, judge, or date is stated on the page.
Fined $3K
Cho filed a reply brief with nonexistent cases and fabricated propositions from generative AI, and the court sanctioned him and struck the brief.
OTG New York, Inc. v. Ottogi America, Inc. · Sukjin Henry Cho · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Magistrate Judge José R. Almonte · NJ
“Mr. Cho has confirmed that he indeed used AI, which provided him with hallucinated case law and propositions that he then incorporated into his reply brief without verification.”
theinternetninja.com ↗
The file →
  • OTG New York, Inc. v. Ottogi America, Inc.; Sukjin Henry Cho was sanctioned.
  • Cho filed a reply brief using AI-hallucinated case law and propositions.
  • The court imposed a $3,000 Rule 11(c) monetary sanction.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; Magistrate Judge José R. Almonte.
  • No AI product was named; the court said the AI provided hallucinated case law without verification.
Fined $110K
Two lawyers filed 15 fabricated citations and eight invented quotations, and a federal magistrate judge sanctioned them $110,000.
In re Two Oregon Lawyers · U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · OR
customgpt.ai ↗
The file →
  • In re Two Oregon Lawyers involved two lawyers in Oregon.
  • They filed 15 fabricated citations and eight invented quotations.
  • A federal magistrate judge imposed a $110,000 sanction.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Oregon.
  • The page says it was the largest such penalty handed down by an Oregon federal judge.
Fined
A Melbourne law firm was ordered to pay costs after it was caught using fake AI-generated citations and incorrect cases.
[Melbourne law firm matter] · a Melbourne law firm · VIC
ia.acs.org.au ↗
The file →
  • A Melbourne law firm was sanctioned in a separate matter.
  • It was caught using fake AI-generated citations and incorrect cases.
  • The firm was ordered to pay costs, but the amount is not given on the page.
  • Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • The article says this happened last month and gives no judge name or AI tool.
Fined $31K
A Canadian tribunal found court materials with AI-fabricated case citations and ordered the lawyer to pay $31,150 in costs.
Giacomini et al. v. University of Toronto Mississauga · Ontario court
cp24.com ↗
The file →
  • Giacomini et al. v. University of Toronto Mississauga; the lawyer was sanctioned
  • Court materials contained AI-fabricated case citations
  • The tribunal ordered $31,150 in costs
  • A Canadian tribunal in Ontario
  • Published June 27, 2026; the article says it was the largest costs award of its kind to date
Fined
The Tribunal issued reasons on costs in a matter involving fictitious case authorities filed with AI misuse, and the entry notes costs were ordered.
2026 ONLSTH 112, Reasons for Decision on Costs of Motions · Ontario’s Law Society Tribunal
courtready.ca ↗
The file →
  • 2026 ONLSTH 112; counsel or firm not named on the page
  • Filed fictitious case authorities and the page links it to AI misuse
  • Costs were ordered in the reasons for decision
  • Ontario’s Law Society Tribunal, Ontario
  • Published on the page as a cited decision; no AI tool named
Fined $14K
Murphy was part of the briefing that contained fake cases and fabricated citations; the court ordered him to pay $14,000 in additional attorney fees.
Couvrette v. [not stated in page] · Tim Murphy · U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · OR
“In the quickly expanding universe of cases involving sanctions for the misuse of artificial intelligence, this case is a notorious outlier in both degree and volume,”
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Couvrette v. [not stated in page] also involved attorney Tim Murphy in a procedural role.
  • The attorneys filed three briefs with 15 nonexistent cases and eight fabricated quotations.
  • The court ordered Murphy to pay $14,000 in additional attorney fees.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in Oregon.
  • Dec. 12 opinion by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke; the page says Murphy understood the sanctions but denied submitting AI-cited briefs.
Fined $6K
A Mississippi federal judge disqualified the attorneys and fined Wilson $2,500 and Williams $3,500 after both sides misused AI.
Wilson and Williams matter · Wilson; Williams · federal court in Mississippi · MS
reuters.com ↗
The file →
  • Wilson and Williams matter; Wilson and Williams were sanctioned
  • Both sides misused AI in the lawsuit and the judge disqualified the attorneys
  • Wilson was fined $2,500 and Williams was fined $3,500, totaling $6,000
  • Federal court in Mississippi
  • Date not stated; the article says they were each ordered to pay $1,000
Fined $4K
The court sanctioned Anderson after concluding AI-fabricated or hallucinated citations required both monetary and non-monetary sanctions for deterrence.
In re Anderson · Anderson · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
vitallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Anderson; Anderson was sanctioned.
  • The court said AI-fabricated or hallucinated citations warranted sanctions.
  • It ordered Anderson to pay $4,000.
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania.
  • The court said monetary and non-monetary sanctions were needed to deter Rule 11 violations.
Fined $2K
The plaintiff filed a reconsideration motion with nonexistent and manufactured citations, and the court imposed a $1,500 sanction and bar referral.
Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC, et al. · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California · CA
sternekessler.com ↗
The file →
  • Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC, et al. involved the plaintiff’s counsel.
  • The motion cited two nonexistent cases, ten misquoted cases, and twelve unsupported cases.
  • The court imposed a $1,500 sanction and referred the order to the State Bar of California.
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California; federal; California.
  • The court said the attorney was lying about how she did her work.
Fined $10K ChatGPT
An attorney filed a state court appeal with 21 of 23 quoted citations hallucinated by ChatGPT and was fined $10,000.
California court appeal matter · California court · CA
nbcnews.com ↗
The file →
  • An unnamed attorney in California was fined.
  • The attorney filed a state court appeal with 21 of 23 quotes hallucinated by ChatGPT.
  • The court imposed a $10,000 fine.
  • California court; state jurisdiction; location not further specified on the page.
  • The article calls it possibly the largest-ever fine over AI fabrications.
Fined $10K ChatGPT
An appeals court in California fined a lawyer $10,000 after nearly all quotations in the briefs were fabricated with AI tools.
In re: OpenAI, Inc. ChatGPT Litigation · California Court of Appeal · CA
““as a warning””
404media.co ↗
The file →
  • An unnamed lawyer was sanctioned in a California appeal.
  • The lawyer filed briefs with nearly all legal quotations fabricated through AI tools.
  • The court imposed a record $10,000 fine.
  • California Court of Appeal, California.
  • The page says the lawyer used ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Grok; the date is only given as earlier this month.
Fined $9K
Judge Sharion Aycock sanctioned four lawyers after both sides filed briefs citing AI-invented cases, cancelled the trial, and paused the proceedings.
City of Aberdeen fee case · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · MS
““This case presents the Court with an unusual scenario — attorneys for both litigants engaged in similar sanctionable conduct,””
legalcheek.com ↗
The file →
  • Contract dispute in the City of Aberdeen fee case before Judge Sharion Aycock.
  • Both sides' filings cited cases the court found did not exist after AI research and drafting.
  • Four lawyers were sanctioned; the two drafting lawyers were fined $2,500 and $3,500, and the other two were fined $1,000 each.
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
  • June 11, 2026; the order said the duty to verify work “is absolute” and “cannot be outsourced to technology or delegated to co-counsel”.
Fined $1K
An attorney filed a pleading with AI-fabricated citations and quotations, and the court imposed a $1,000 fine plus mandatory CLE training on AI.
Kaur v. Desso · U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York · NY
“the need to check whether the assertions and quotations generated were accurate trumps all.”
thomsonreuters.com ↗
The file →
  • Kaur v. Desso involved the plaintiff's attorney
  • The court found the attorney knew AI tools can hallucinate citations and quotations
  • The court imposed a $1,000 fine and ordered CLE training on AI
  • U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York
  • The court said accuracy checks outweigh pressure to rush the pleading
Fined $4K
Williams was also fined and barred after submitting AI-generated filings with fake citations; the article says two local counsel were disqualified and fined too.
Kathryn Williams · Kathryn Williams · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · MS
medium.com ↗
The file →
  • Kathryn Williams was sanctioned in the Mississippi case.
  • She admitted using AI and submitting unverified citations.
  • The court fined her $3,500 and barred her for two years.
  • Northern District of Mississippi, federal court.
  • June 2026 article; it says she violated her firm's AI policy and misrepresented a scheduling conflict.
Fined $60K
An Illinois law firm and one of its partners were ordered to pay the opposition law firm after fake citations were found in a filing.
Illinois law firm and one of its partners · IL
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • An Illinois law firm and one of its partners were sanctioned.
  • They were ordered to pay after fake citations were found in a filing.
  • The combined monetary award was $59,500.
  • Illinois; the article names no specific court.
  • The date is not given; the article says the payment went to the opposition law firm that uncovered the fake citations.
Fined ChatGPT
An attorney and his firm were fined after filing bankruptcy arguments containing four misrepresented or fictitious matters.
Bankruptcy proceedings matter · United States Bankruptcy Court
heplerbroom.com ↗
The file →
  • An attorney and his firm were sanctioned in bankruptcy proceedings.
  • Their filing cited four misrepresented or fictitious matters.
  • The court fined both the attorney and the firm.
  • United States Bankruptcy Court; the article gives no judge name.
  • The attorney admitted using ChatGPT and not verifying the citations before filing.
Fined $60K ChatGPT
Counsel cited the nonexistent Illinois Supreme Court case Mack v. Anderson in a post-trial motion; the judge held a special hearing and sanctions were sought.
Chicago Housing Authority matter · Chicago Housing Authority's counsel · Cook County Circuit Court · IL

Cases that don't exist

  • Mack v. Anderson
heplerbroom.com ↗
The file →
  • Chicago Housing Authority counsel cited Mack v. Anderson in a post-trial motion.
  • The case did not exist and was generated by AI research.
  • Plaintiff sought sanctions after the false citation and related misrepresentations.
  • Cook County Circuit Court, Illinois; Judge Thomas Cushing held a special hearing.
  • Summer 2025; the attorney said she did not think ChatGPT could create false precedent.
Fined
William T. Panichi was sanctioned at least three times after using generative AI in legal work.
William T. Panichi · William T. Panichi · IL
“After the first, he promised the court, “I’m not going to do it again,” just before getting hit with two more rounds of sanctions a month later.”
nypost.com ↗
The file →
  • Illinois attorney William T. Panichi was sanctioned at least three times.
  • The page ties the sanctions to generative AI use in legal research.
  • The article does not give an amount for the sanctions.
  • The page identifies Illinois as the state.
  • The page says he promised the court he would not do it again before two more sanctions a month later.
Fined $1K Westlaw Precision
A lawyer blamed Westlaw Precision for hallucinated citations, but the judge found the citations came from a suspended lawyer's work and imposed a $1,000 penalty.
Louisiana court imposed a $1,000 penalty · Louisiana court · LA
arstechnica.com ↗
The file →
  • Louisiana case involving an unnamed lawyer
  • She blamed Westlaw Precision for AI hallucinations in citations
  • $1,000 penalty
  • Louisiana court, Louisiana
  • The judge found she had outsourced the research to a currently suspended lawyer
Fined $500 ChatGPT
The plaintiff filed AI-prepared pleadings with fictitious legal authorities and was ordered to pay $500 in compensation.
Kalala c. Coopérative d'habitation La Fraternité Micheloise · Superior Court of Québec
lazaruslegal.com ↗
The file →
  • Kalala c. Coopérative d'habitation La Fraternité Micheloise; the plaintiff
  • The pleadings contained fictitious authorities and wrong Civil Code provisions
  • Monetary sanction of $500 in compensation
  • Superior Court of Québec
  • 2025; the plaintiff acknowledged using ChatGPT
Fined $750
A party filed AI-assisted pleadings containing fictitious legal authorities, and the court ordered that party to pay $750.
Bourse de l’Immobilier Multilogements inc. c. Lanthier · Superior Court of Québec
lazaruslegal.com ↗
The file →
  • Bourse de l’Immobilier Multilogements inc. c. Lanthier; the party
  • AI-assisted pleadings contained fictitious legal authorities
  • Monetary sanction of $750
  • Superior Court of Québec
  • 2025; the court said fabricated authorities are a serious procedural breach
Fined $500 2026-07-30
Dean Kajioka filed a habeas reply with a hallucinated citation; Judge Monica Trujillo struck the document and imposed $500 in sanctions.
Robert Schwieger · Dean Kajioka · Regional Justice Center; District Judge Monica Trujillo · NV
“AI was misused”

Cases that don't exist

  • Evans v. State, 123 Nev. 117, 159 P.3d 438 (2007)
govtech.com ↗
The file →
  • Dean Kajioka represented Robert Schwieger in the Piero’s bombing case.
  • Prosecutors said his reply brief was largely created using AI and cited a nonexistent case.
  • They sought sanctions and to strike the brief.
  • The matter was in Nevada state court before District Judge Monica Trujillo.
  • The article says the filing cited 'Evans v. State, 123 Nev. 117, 159 P.3d 438 (2007),' which prosecutors could not find.
Fined $15K ChatGPT 2026-07-28
Mason Cole filed briefs with false statutory quotations and case citations, and the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District fined him for each false citation and quotation.
Mason Cole · Mason Cole of Cole Sadkin · Illinois Appellate Court for the First District · IL
“"This is unacceptable," the appeals court said.”
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Mason Cole of Cole Sadkin was sanctioned.
  • He filed briefs containing false statutory quotations, false case citations and improper facts.
  • The court imposed a $15,000 fine, $1,500 for each false citation and quotation.
  • Illinois Appellate Court for the First District, Illinois.
  • July 28 opinion; Cole said he used a premium corporate subscription of ChatGPT and cross-referenced with LexisNexis.
Fined $3K ChatGPT 2026-07-24
A plaintiff's attorney filed multiple court submissions with dozens of AI-generated fake citations and quotations and did not correct them; the judge imposed a $3,000 sanction.
Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · WA
“tantamount to bad faith”
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • A plaintiff's attorney in Tiffany M. Cartwright was sanctioned.
  • She submitted multiple filings with dozens of fake citations and quotations generated by AI platforms.
  • The court imposed a $3,000 monetary sanction.
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Washington.
  • July 24, 2026; the judge called the conduct 'tantamount to bad faith.'
Fined $10K 2026-07-02
An AI-assisted brief filed in a civil appeal contained fabricated citations and inaccurate quotations, and the court imposed $10,500 in sanctions on the attorney and his firm.
Michael Sanders · Michael Sanders; Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff PLLC · Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, Second Department · NY
“Sanders submitted a brief “prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence, containing citations to nonexistent cases, fictitious purported Court of Appeals quotations wholly contrary to actual law, and misrepresentations about what certain real cases actually held or decided,” LaSalle wrote.”
minnlawyer.com ↗
The file →
  • Michael Sanders and Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff PLLC were sanctioned.
  • Sanders filed a brief with nonexistent citations and inaccurate quotations generated during AI-assisted research.
  • The court ordered $10,500 total: $8,000 from Sanders and $2,500 from his firm.
  • Appellate Division, Second Department, New York state court in Rochester.
  • Decision reported July 2, 2026; Presiding Justice Hector D. LaSalle noted possible Attorney Grievance Committee review.
Fined ChatGPT 2026-07-02
An Illinois attorney admitted using ChatGPT in a response brief filed July 2, and the court said the brief also contained misstatements of law.
Ill. Appeals Court Says It Hopes Higher Fine Will Deter AI Hallucinations · IL
law.com ↗
The file →
  • Illinois appeals-court matter about hallucinated citations.
  • The attorney admitted using a 'premier corporate subscription of ChatGPT' in a response brief.
  • The court said the brief also included misstatements of law.
  • Illinois Appeals Court.
  • The response brief was filed July 2, 2026; the article says the court hoped a higher fine would deter AI hallucinations.
Fined $6K ChatGPT 2026-07-01
Thomas Nield used ChatGPT to research a Chapter 13 issue and filed briefs with nonexistent cases and quotes; Judge Michael Slade fined him $5,500.
Thomas Nield · Thomas Nield · Illinois bankruptcy court · IL
“The next lawyer who does the same thing is warned that he or she will likely see a more significant penalty.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Thomas Nield, a former Semrad Law Firm bankruptcy attorney, was sanctioned in Illinois.
  • He used ChatGPT and filed documents with hallucinated cases and quotes.
  • Judge Michael Slade imposed a $5,500 fine.
  • The sanction came from the Illinois bankruptcy court.
  • The article says he used ChatGPT for an ancillary issue in a Chapter 13 case and was terminated in September.
Fined $11K 2026-06-23
A lawyer filed an appellate brief with fake case citations and misstatements of law, and the court sanctioned him and his firm.
Landberg v. City of New York · Appellate Division, Second Department · NY
“However, [Counsel]'s decision not to be honest with the Court during oral argument also demonstrated his professional immaturity, arrogance, and profound lack of respect for the judicial system.”
secondcircuitcivilrights.blogspot.com ↗
The file →
  • Landberg v. City of New York involved a lawyer and his firm.
  • They submitted an appellate brief containing fake case citations and misstatements.
  • The court imposed $11,000 in sanctions total.
  • Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
  • Decided June 23, 2026; the page says the lawyer used AI-assisted research tools but not which one.
Fined $2K 2026-06-22
A Pennsylvania plaintiffs lawyer filed briefs with AI-generated hallucinated citations and was fined $1,500 and suspended from the court for six months.
Brian Kent · Brian Kent · U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania · PA
law.com ↗
The file →
  • Brian Kent, a Pennsylvania plaintiffs attorney, was sanctioned by a federal court in Pennsylvania.
  • He filed briefs containing AI-generated hallucinated citations.
  • The court ordered a $1,500 penalty and a six-month suspension.
  • The matter was in federal court in Pennsylvania.
  • The article says the errors were inadvertent and tool-driven.
Fined $31K Grok 2026-06-17
Shahryar Mazaheri used AI to draft court filings containing fake and irrelevant citations, and the tribunal ordered him to pay $31,150 in costs.
Mazaheri v Law Society of Ontario, 2026 ONLSTH 112 (CanLII) · Shahryar Mazaheri · Law Society Tribunal of Ontario · ON
“"But unlike a human, a large language model does not appreciate nuance or exercise judgment or use a moral compass when writing. It just does calculations, and then puts words in the order dictated by statistical probabilities. The calculations are impressive – large volumes of authoritative-sounding text are generated in seconds or minutes. But they are just calculations. And the product only reads or sounds like text written by humans. It isn't the same."”
lawtimesnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Mazaheri v. Law Society of Ontario involved Shahryar Mazaheri.
  • He used AI to prepare a factum, supplementary factum, affidavit, and supplementary affidavit without checking the output.
  • The tribunal ordered costs of $31,150 to the Law Society of Ontario.
  • The decision was by the Law Society Tribunal in Ontario, Canada.
  • The article says the AI output included citations to cases that don’t exist and real cases irrelevant to the points made.
Fined 2026-06-17
Plaintiff's counsel filed briefs relying on fabricated and unsupported cases generated by AI, and the court remanded for a damages determination against counsel personally.
BARBER v. Ascension Providence Hospital, Defendant · Ronnie Cromer Jr · Court of Appeals of Michigan · MI
caselaw.findlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • BARBER v. Ascension Providence Hospital, Defendant; plaintiff's counsel
  • Counsel relied on AI-generated fabricated and unsupported legal authority in trial and on appeal
  • Court affirmed but remanded for defendant's actual damages and expenses to be paid by counsel personally
  • Court of Appeals of Michigan, Michigan
  • Decided June 17, 2026; counsel used artificial intelligence without adequate verification
Fined 2026-06-11
Attorneys filed a brief with fabricated case citations and quotations, and the California Court of Appeal upheld sanctions.
Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing · California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District · CA
“The trial court described the filing as containing “nonexistent citations” and “fictitious quotations,” ultimately imposing sanctions under California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7.”
eminentdomainreport.com ↗
The file →
  • Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing involved attorneys sanctioned for a brief.
  • The brief contained fabricated case citations and quotations with hallmarks of generative AI.
  • Sanctions were imposed under California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 and upheld on appeal.
  • Court of Appeal, First District, California.
  • June 11, 2026; the article says the attorneys failed to independently verify authorities before filing.
Fined $5K Copilot 2026-06-11
Ginsburg filed a brief with a fake case, fake quotes, and incorrect legal propositions, and the court imposed sanctions and struck the response.
McCormick v. Texakoma Financial, Inc. · Amy L.B. Ginsburg · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas · TX
“If someone—even an intern—gets the case name, number, year, and quotation wrong, they are not struggling with research or citation formatting. They are struggling with honesty.”
tcpaworld.com ↗
The file →
  • McCormick v. Texakoma Financial, Inc. against Amy L.B. Ginsburg
  • Brief contained a fake case, fake quotes, and incorrect legal propositions
  • Court ordered a $5,000 penalty and struck the response
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texas
  • June 11, 2026; court also ordered publication, CLE, and future verification certification
Fined $500 2026-06-05
The court struck a response with fictitious authorities after the respondent admitted using AI, and allowed amendment conditioned on a $500 sanction.
Witkin v. McGreevy · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
apps.oregon.gov ↗
The file →
  • Witkin v. McGreevy involved a respondent who filed a response with fictitious authorities and inaccurate legal arguments.
  • The respondent admitted using AI, but fully complied with the court's show-cause order and clarified each citation.
  • Sanction type: monetary fine of $500 conditioned on filing an amended response.
  • Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon; state court order issued on 2026-06-05.
  • The court granted leave to amend after the respondent agreed to the $500 sanction; the AI tool was not named.
Fined $5K Westlaw Precision 2026-06-03
Two Orange County immigration attorneys filed a brief with nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations; the Ninth Circuit suspended each for six months and fined each $2,500.
Lnu v. Blanche · Mike Singh Sethi; Sethi Law Group; William Rounds; Bill Rounds Attorney at Law PC · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
“We issue this disciplinary order, and explain our reasoning at some length, as a warning to the members of this Court's bar: be aware of the risks of overreliance on generative AI, read everything cited in a court filing—whether drafted by generative AI or not—and disclose quickly and transparently generative AI hallucinations that are inadvertently included in court filings….”

Cases that don't exist

  • Eduardo v. Garland, 28 F.4th 742 (9th Cir. 2022)
  • Lay v. Holder, 729 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2013)
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
  • LNU v. Blanche; attorney Mike Singh Sethi was sanctioned with co-counsel William Rounds.
  • He filed briefs with nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations, later calling them typographical errors.
  • The Ninth Circuit suspended him from practice before the court for six months.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Judge Richard Paez, Carlos Bea, and Danielle Forrest.
  • The order said generative AI hallucinations had been included in filings and warned lawyers to read every citation.
Fined $10K 2026-06-01
A non-attorney filed AI-generated legal arguments with non-existent cases; the Missouri Court of Appeals fined him $10,000 in the opposing party’s attorney’s fees.
Boatner v. Hickerson · Missouri Court of Appeals · MO
carnahanevans.com ↗
The file →
  • Boatner v. Hickerson involved a non-attorney using AI-generated arguments.
  • Of six cited cases, four did not exist and two were only mentioned by name.
  • The court sanctioned him $10,000 in the opposing party’s attorney’s fees.
  • Missouri Court of Appeals, Missouri.
  • The article says the AI again made up several non-existent cases.
Fined $10K 2026-06-01
The Second Department sanctioned an attorney $8,000 and his firm $2,500 for an appellate brief with fictitious Court of Appeals quotations.
Landberg v. City of New York · New York Appellate Division, Second Department · NY
execute.law ↗
The file →
  • Landberg v. City of New York; an attorney and his firm were sanctioned
  • An appellate brief included fictitious Court of Appeals quotations
  • The court imposed $8,000 on the attorney and $2,500 on the firm
  • Second Department, New York appellate court
  • June 2026; the matter was flagged for the grievance committee
Fined $5K 2026-06-01
Counsel filed appellate briefs with hallucinated quotations, citations, and record-contradicted facts; the Seventh Circuit denied the petition and imposed a $5,000 Rule 46(c) sanction.
Heriberto Perez-Castillo v. Todd W. Blanche · Abdullah Salah · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
casemine.com ↗
The file →
  • Heriberto Perez-Castillo v. Todd W. Blanche; attorney Abdullah Salah was sanctioned.
  • He filed two briefs containing hallucinated quotations/citations and record-contradicted facts.
  • The Seventh Circuit imposed a $5,000 fine under Fed. R. App. P. 46(c).
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; federal; Illinois.
  • June 1, 2026; the court said he did not review either brief for accuracy.
Fined $250 2026-05-27
A pro se father cited one nonexistent case using generative AI, and the court sanctioned him $250.
Matter of Julien v. Arthur · Appellate Division, Second Department · NY
“The pro se litigant cited only one nonexistent case, but the court ruled that that was sufficient to warrant the imposition of a sanction.”
marshalldennehey.com ↗
The file →
  • Matter of Julien v. Arthur involved a pro se litigant.
  • He cited one nonexistent case with generative AI.
  • The court imposed a $250 sanction.
  • Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
  • Decision dated May 27, 2026; the court noted it was only a single AI hallucination.
Fined $10K 2026-05-20
The court sanctioned Michael Sanders and his firm for a brief with AI-generated fake citations, nonexistent cases, and misstatements of real law.
Landberg v. City of New York · Michael Sanders; Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff PLLC · Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division · NY
“"It's striking, concerning, disappointing, and saddening to think that members of the bar would forward cases to a court that don't exist, and to think that the lawyers on the other side of that didn’t read it for whatever reason, didn’t check it."”
404media.co ↗
The file →
  • Michael Sanders and Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff PLLC were sanctioned.
  • Sanders filed a brief containing fake citations and fake quotations from AI-assisted research.
  • The court imposed $10,500 total: $8,000 on Sanders and $2,500 on the firm.
  • Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Second Department, New York.
  • June 26, 2026 article; Sanders said the citations came from hallucinated AI and he failed to verify them.
Fined $1K Claude 2026-05-18
A lawyer filed a brief with Claude-generated fabricated quotes and was fined $1,000 plus ordered to take an AI-assistance course.
Louisiana district court matter · Louisiana district court · LA
“Ignorance of the risks of AI usage is no longer an excuse,”
cebudailynews.inquirer.net ↗
The file →
  • Jerry Edwards Jr. sanctioned the lawyer in a Louisiana district court matter.
  • The brief contained seven AI-generated quotes attributed to prior rulings that were false or misrepresented.
  • The court fined him $1,000 and ordered a three-hour AI-assisted legal practice course.
  • Louisiana district court, Louisiana.
  • The sanctions order was issued May 18; the lawyer said a clerk had caught errors in an earlier draft and then he used Claude to fix them.
Fined $6K 2026-05-11
Blackburn was found in contempt for missing payments on a $6,000 sanction imposed after he filed a brief with a hallucinated AI case citation.
Gardner v. Combs et al. · Tyrone A. Blackburn of T.A. Blackburn PLLC · U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by designation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
“"I am going to hold you in contempt," Judge Gordon said, "but I am going to issue an oral admonition."”

Cases that don't exist

  • United States v. Masha
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Gardner v. Combs et al.; Tyrone A. Blackburn of T.A. Blackburn PLLC
  • He filed a brief citing a nonexistent AI-generated case and did not verify it.
  • Judge Gordon imposed a $6,000 fine, later enforcing it through contempt and an oral admonition.
  • U.S. Court of International Trade sitting by designation in the District of New Jersey.
  • May 11, 2026; the judge said he could jail Blackburn but chose a warning instead.
Fined $1K 2026-05-01
Barsotti filed arguments citing three nonexistent cases; the magistrate fined her $1,000 and ordered an hour of AI-ethics training.
Jessica Barsotti · Jessica Barsotti · U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson · CA
“The Court does not prohibit or oppose the use of artificial intelligence in legal advocacy, so long as counsel independently verifies the accuracy of AI-generated content.”
sfchronicle.com ↗
The file →
  • Jessica Barsotti filed arguments in the BART case using three nonexistent cases.
  • A federal magistrate found the citations were evidently produced by AI.
  • The court fined her $1,000 and ordered one hour of training.
  • U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson, federal court in California.
  • Ruling this month; the judge said counsel must independently verify AI-generated content.
Fined $1K Westlaw 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.
Hill v. Workday · 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.
Fined $5K Claude 2026-04-27
Raja Rajan was sanctioned $5,000 for filing a brief with AI-generated fabrications and had already been fined $2,500 in the same matter.
Rajan matter · Raja Rajan · US District Court · PA
“any first-year law student knows you have to verify the authority cited, and warned that a third strike would mean referral to Pennsylvania's disciplinary board.”
habeas.ai ↗
The file →
  • Raja Rajan was sanctioned in a federal matter in Pennsylvania.
  • He filed a brief containing AI-generated fabrications.
  • The court imposed a $5,000 sanction, after a prior $2,500 fine in the same case.
  • US District Judge Kai Scott issued the order in Pennsylvania.
  • Rajan said he could not remember whether he used Claude, ChatGPT or Grok.
Fined $5K 2026-04-27
Raja Rajan filed an AI-written brief with six false citations, and Judge Kai N. Scott sanctioned him $5,000 after a prior $2,500 sanction.
Raja Rajan matter · Raja Rajan · U.S. District Court (Philadelphia federal court) · NJ
compliancehub.wiki ↗
The file →
  • Raja Rajan was sanctioned again for AI hallucinations.
  • He used one AI chatbot to draft a brief and another to check citations.
  • The court imposed a $5,000 sanction after an earlier $2,500 sanction.
  • U.S. District Court (Philadelphia federal court); Judge Kai N. Scott.
  • April 27, 2026; the judge warned of a disciplinary referral if it happened again.
Fined $8K 2026-04-22
Appellant's opening brief used fabricated law from generative AI; the court struck it, denied amendment, and ordered appellant's attorneys to pay respondent's fees.
Williams v. Honl · Abby Shearer · Court of Appeals of Oregon · OR
“The brief on file “contain[ed] fabricated quotations and propositions of law falsely attributed to existing cases.””
caselaw.findlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Williams v. Honl; appellant's attorney Abby Shearer
  • Opening brief contained fabricated quotations and propositions of law from AI research
  • Court ordered $8,044.25 in attorney fees, not dismissal
  • Court of Appeals of Oregon, decided in Oregon
  • April 22, 2026; court said the brief had fabricated law and cited generative AI as the cause
Fined $5K 2026-04-20
Raja Rajan filed court papers with made-up AI-generated case citations; Judge Kai N. Scott imposed a $5,000 sanction and required extra AI-and-ethics CLE.
Bunce v. Visual Tech. Innovations Inc. · Raja Rajan · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
“The judge said the court “remains appalled by Mr. Rajan’s improper conduct.””
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Bunce v. Visual Tech. Innovations Inc.; Raja Rajan of Cherry Hill, NJ
  • He used made-up, AI-generated case citations in filings for a second time
  • Judge Kai N. Scott fined him $5,000 and ordered additional CLE
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • 2026-04-20; Scott said there was no valid reason for not verifying the citations
Fined 2026-04-09
J. Scott Key filed arguments containing citations to nonexistent cases and statutes, and the court sanctioned the misuse.
Daniels v. New York State Department of Health · J. Scott Key · New York state court · NY
govinfo.gov ↗
The file →
  • Daniels v. New York State Department of Health; J. Scott Key was sanctioned.
  • He filed arguments that contained cites to nonexistent cases and statutes.
  • The court imposed a monetary fine, but the amount is not stated in the page.
  • New York state court, New York.
  • April 9, 2026; the page says the cites were the result of 'AI Hallucinations.'
Fined Lexis+ AI 2026-04-06
The State Bar Court approved discipline after Khalifeh filed a federal trademark brief with nonexistent and irrelevant AI-assisted citations and failed to disclose generative AI use.
Omid Emile Khalifeh · Omid Emile Khalifeh · State Bar Court · CA
“Courts and clients must be able to trust that the filings attorneys submit are accurate, supported, and compliant with professional standards,”
latimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Omid Emile Khalifeh was accused by the State Bar of California.
  • He filed an April 2025 federal trademark brief with a nonexistent citation and two irrelevant AI-assisted citations.
  • The State Bar Court approved discipline, including probation and a 30-day suspension.
  • State Bar Court, California.
  • April 6, 2026; he said the brief was informed by Lexis+ AI.
Fined Westlaw’s 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
redlinedigest.com ↗
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.
Fined $1K 2026-03-27
A lawyer filed papers with fabricated citations; the court imposed a monetary sanction and adverse costs and recommended CLE.
Amtrust North America o/b/o Justin McGinness v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company · SC New Jersey · NJ
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Amtrust North America o/b/o Justin McGinness v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company involved a lawyer.
  • The filing contained fabricated citations.
  • The court imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction plus adverse costs and recommended CLE.
  • The case was in SC New Jersey.
  • Date: 2026-03-27; AI use was listed as implied.
Fined 2026-03-25
The court awarded increased litigation costs after a party made the proceedings chaotic through AI-generated pleadings.
Antwerp Court of Appeal ruling 2025/AR/774 · Antwerp Court of Appeal
ictrechtswijzer.be ↗
The file →
  • Antwerp Court of Appeal ruling 2025/AR/774; no attorney named
  • AI made the pleadings confusing, with changing facts and grounds
  • The court awarded increased litigation costs, with no amount stated
  • Antwerp Court of Appeal, Belgium
  • Dated 2026-03-25; the opposing party had to file extensive additional briefs
Fined $10K 2026-03-22
The municipality filed AI-generated materials with a fake Education Ministry directive and fabricated rulings, and the Supreme Court ordered 30,000 NIS in costs.
Ramat Gan municipality special-education dispute · Municipality of Ramat Gan · Israel Supreme Court
“The court found that the municipality relied on materials generated by AI tools that included a non-existent Education Ministry directive and fabricated court rulings, and exceptionally ordered the municipality to pay 30,000 NIS (approximately $9,600) in legal costs.”
pearlcohen.com ↗
The file →
  • Municipality of Ramat Gan in a child-services dispute.
  • It relied on AI-generated materials with a fake directive and fabricated rulings.
  • The Supreme Court imposed 30,000 NIS in legal costs.
  • Israel’s Supreme Court.
  • March 22, 2026; the court called the use of AI 'reckless'.
Fined $500 ChatGPT 2026-03-19
A pro se plaintiff filed a Rule 11 sanctions motion containing fictitious and inaccurate AI-generated case citations; the court awarded fees to the defendant.
Brownfield v. Cherokee County School District No. 35 · Oscar Brownfield · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma · OK
“Still, they “displayed a reckless disregard for the obligation to ensure that what is filed in federal court is true, verified, and worthy of the public trust,” warranting sanctions “both to redress the specific harm and to deter recurrence.””
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Brownfield v. Cherokee County School District No. 35 involved a pro se plaintiff sanctioned for bogus citations.
  • His Rule 11 motion contained fictitious and inaccurate case citations generated by AI.
  • The court ordered $500 paid directly to the school district.
  • E.D. Okla., federal court in Oklahoma.
  • March 19, 2026; the amount reflected about two hours of defense counsel time.
Fined $10K 2026-03-18
The Oregon Court of Appeals fined William L. Ghiorso $10,000 after his appellate brief cited 15 hallucinated cases.
William Ghiorso · William Ghiorso · Oregon Court of Appeals · OR
“submitting a brief with unchecked and ultimately fabricated citations may breach an attorney’s duties of professionalism, truthfulness, and candor to the court.”
kgw.com ↗
The file →
  • William L. Ghiorso was sanctioned by the Oregon Court of Appeals.
  • His appellate brief cited 15 hallucinated cases.
  • The court imposed a $10,000 fine.
  • The case was in the Oregon Court of Appeals in Oregon.
  • The opinion was dated March 18, 2026, and Judge Scott A. Shorr noted Ghiorso’s serious health issues.
Fined $10K 2026-03-18
A brief contained nine incorrect citations out of 27 because of AI tools, and the court imposed a $10,000 fine.
Doiban v. Oregon Liquor & Cannabis Comm’n · Court of Appeals of Oregon · OR
“We further explained that it was “an exceptionally grave situation for at least three reasons.””
josephhollander.com ↗
The file →
  • Doiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission involved a brief with hallucinated citations.
  • Nine of 27 legal citations in a ten-page brief were incorrect due to AI use.
  • The Court of Appeals imposed a $10,000 fine.
  • Court of Appeals of Oregon.
  • The date was March 18, 2026, and the article quotes the court calling it an 'exceptionally grave situation.'
Fined $116K 2026-03-13
Two Tennessee attorneys filed briefs with more than two dozen fake or misrepresented citations, and the Sixth Circuit imposed sanctions and referred them for discipline.
Whiting v. City of Athens, Tennessee · Van R. Irion and Russ Egli · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · TN
“The court found they "repeatedly misrepresented the record, cited non-existent cases, and cited cases for propositions of law that they did not even discuss, much less support."”

Cases that don't exist

  • Berg v. Knox Cnty., TN, 2024 WL 2012345, at *4 (6th Cir. Mar. 12, 2024)
  • Jones v. Hamilton Cnty., 29 F.4th 647, 655 (6th Cir. 2022)
  • Adcock-Ladd v. Secretary of the Treasury, 227 F.3d 343, 350 (6th Cir. 2000)

+1 more

opn.ca6.uscourts.gov ↗
The file →
  • Whiting v. City of Athens, Tennessee involved two Tennessee attorneys.
  • Their briefs contained more than two dozen fake or misrepresented citations across three appeals.
  • The court imposed about $116,000 in sanctions and referred them for discipline.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, federal.
  • 2026; the order set $15,000 per attorney plus fees and double costs.
Fined $15K 2026-03-13
Two attorneys filed appeals with at least two dozen hallucinated citations, and the Sixth Circuit imposed punitive fines on both.
Whiting v. City of Athens · Van R. Irion and Russ Egli · US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
“[n]o brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations — whether provided by generative AI or any other source — that” a lawyer has not personally “read and verified.”
mayerbrown.com ↗
The file →
  • Whiting v. City of Athens sanctioned two attorneys of record.
  • Their filings contained at least two dozen hallucinated citations across three consolidated appeals.
  • The Sixth Circuit imposed $15,000 in punitive fines on both attorneys.
  • Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
  • Date: 2026-03-13; the court said they had 'brought the profession into disrepute.'
Fined $2K ChatGPT 2026-03-10
A pro se plaintiff filed a brief with fabricated case citations and AI-generated content; the court imposed Rule 11 sanctions.
Allen v. Cass Casper · N.D. Ill. · IL
“Pro se status does not shelter plaintiffs from sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. … Filing a document that contains citations to nonexistent cases, quotes language that comes from no real case, or that contains arguments wholly unsupported by the record violates Rule 11. Allen did just that. This demonstrates that Allen failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the supporting law or facts.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Allen v. Cass Casper involved a pro se plaintiff sanctioned over AI-made citations.
  • Her opposition brief contained at least two entirely fabricated case citations and AI-generated sections.
  • The court imposed a $1,500 Rule 11 monetary sanction.
  • N.D. Ill., federal court in Illinois.
  • March 10, 2026; the court said she relied too heavily on AI without reasonable inquiry.
Fined $5K 2026-03-09
Roxanne Chung Bonar cited fabricated cases in a dissolution matter and the Court of Appeal affirmed a $5,000 sanctions order against her.
Joan Pablo Torres Campos vs. Leslie Ann Munoz · Roxanne Chung Bonar · California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One · CA
“"We publish this opinion to emphasize that courts and attorneys alike have a responsibility to protect the legal system against distortion by fabricated law, particularly in this new era of hallucinated citations generated by artificial intelligence (AI) tools."”

Cases that don't exist

  • Marriage of Twigg (1984) 34 Cal.3d 926
  • Marriage of Teegarden (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1572
sfchronicle.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Domestic Partnership of Torres Campos and Munoz involved respondent’s counsel.
  • The proposed order and hearing papers contained fictitious case authorities obtained from a Reddit article and apparently from AI tools.
  • The Court of Appeal imposed $5,000 in sanctions and referred the matter to the State Bar.
  • California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One (state, CA).
  • 2026-03-05; the court said reliance on fake cases is fundamentally incompatible with informed discretion.
Fined $10K 2026-03-06
Two lawyers cited two fictitious AI-generated cases in closing submissions and were ordered to pay S$5,000 each in personal costs.
Tan Hai Peng Micheal v Tan Cheong Joo and another and other matters · Mr Goh Peck San · General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
“It is again re-emphasised in this judgment.”
elitigation.sg ↗
The file →
  • Tan Thuan Teck estate suit; Mr Goh Peck San and Mr Amarjit Singh Sidhu
  • Closing submissions cited two fictitious AI-generated cases
  • Ordered to pay S$5,000 each in personal costs (S$10,000 total)
  • Singapore High Court, Singapore
  • 2026-03-06; Justice S Mohan said counsel must verify all authorities
Fined $30K 2026-03-01
The Sixth Circuit imposed a $30,000 combined sanction on two attorneys whose briefs contained over two dozen fake citations and referred the matter for possible discipline.
Sixth Circuit AI-citations case · Two Tennessee-based attorneys · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
compliancehub.wiki ↗
The file →
  • Two attorneys in the Sixth Circuit were sanctioned for fake citations.
  • Their briefs contained over two dozen fake citations and unsupported quotations or propositions.
  • The court imposed a $30,000 combined sanction.
  • Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, federal appellate court.
  • March 2026; the matter was forwarded to the chief judge for potential disciplinary proceedings.
Fined $1K ChatGPT 2026-02-24
An attorney filed an error-filled brief drafted with ChatGPT and Westlaw Precision AI that cited numerous hallucinated cases, and Judge Brandon Long imposed a $1,000 sanction.
Woodward Harbor LLC v. City of Mandeville, et al. · Eastern District of Louisiana · LA
mblb.com ↗
The file →
  • Woodward Harbor LLC v. City of Mandeville, et al.; one attorney was sanctioned.
  • He submitted a brief drafted with ChatGPT and Westlaw Precision AI containing hallucinated cases.
  • The court imposed a $1,000 sanction.
  • Eastern District of Louisiana; federal; Louisiana.
  • 2026-02-24; the brief included at least 11 citations that were made up, misquoted, or misused.
Fined 2026-02-18
The Fifth Circuit sanctioned a Texas attorney for a brief drafted with generative AI that contained fabricated quotations and assertions.
Jennifer Walker Elrod · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · TX
“The Fifth Circuit on Wednesday sanctioned a Texas attorney for using generative artificial intelligence to draft a brief that was "riddled with fabricated quotations and assertions," while rebuking the attorney for not being more forthcoming about her use of the technology and her failure to check its accuracy.”
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • A Texas attorney was sanctioned in the Fifth Circuit.
  • Her AI-drafted brief contained fabricated quotations and assertions.
  • The court sanctioned her, but the article gives no amount.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; Texas.
  • Feb. 18, 2026; the article says she used generative AI and failed to check accuracy.
Fined $2K 2026-02-17
The Fifth Circuit sanctioned Heather Hersh for filing an AI-generated brief with 21 fictional case citations and other errors.
In re Heather Hersh · Heather Hersh of FCRA attorneys · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
““Regrettably, despite numerous news stories, CLE presentations, scholarly articles, and judicial entreaties, AI-hallucinated case citations have increasingly become an even greater problem in our courts, and the problem shows no sign of abating,””
bestlawfirms.com ↗
The file →
  • Heather Hersh of FCRA attorneys was sanctioned by the Fifth Circuit.
  • She filed an AI-generated brief containing 21 fictional case citations and other errors.
  • The court ordered a $2,500 sanction.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; federal appellate court.
  • Feb. 17, 2026; the opinion said AI-hallucinated citations are getting worse and blamed inadequate review.
Fined $12K ChatGPT 2026-02-02
Lawyers filed briefs with ChatGPT-hallucinated citations and quotations, and Judge Julie A. Robinson publicly admonished and sanctioned them.
Lexos Media IP LLC v. Overstock.com Inc. · Sandeep Seth; Kenneth Kula; Christopher Joe; Michael Doell; David Cooper · D. Kan. · KS
“the Rule 11 duty is “nondelegable.””
minnlawyer.com ↗
The file →
  • Four lawyers for a plaintiff company were sanctioned in a patent infringement case.
  • They used ChatGPT to find caselaw and filed briefs with hallucinated citations.
  • Judge Robinson imposed $12,000 total in sanctions and publicly admonished them.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Kansas.
  • Order dated 2026-02-05; the court also revoked one lawyer’s pro hac vice admission and required self-reporting.
Fined $1K ChatGPT 2026-02-01
A New Orleans court fined John Walker $1,000 after his LSU Health Foundation brief contained at least 11 fabricated or mischaracterized citations.
John Walker · John Walker · New Orleans · LA
““To this day it blows my mind it has that capability,””
developmentcorporate.com ↗
The file →
  • John Walker was sanctioned over an LSU Health Foundation brief.
  • The brief contained at least 11 fabricated or mischaracterized citations.
  • The court imposed a $1,000 fine.
  • New Orleans, Louisiana state court.
  • February 2026; Walker used both ChatGPT and Westlaw Precision AI.
Fined $4K 2026-01-26
Anderson and Jeffrey Goldin filed a motion to dismiss with at least eight AI-fabricated citations, and Judge Kearney sanctioned Anderson $4,000.
Lifetime Well LLC v. IBSpot USA Inc. · Yen-Yi Anderson · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
“Judge Kearney was not impressed.”
vibegraveyard.ai ↗
The file →
  • Lifetime Well LLC v. IBSpot USA Inc.; attorney Yen-Yi Anderson.
  • A motion to dismiss contained at least eight AI-generated false citations.
  • Judge Kearney imposed $4,000 in monetary sanctions on Anderson.
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Jan. 26, 2026; Anderson blamed time pressure and fired her law clerk.
Fined $4K 2026-01-26
Lead Counsel filed a brief with fake AI-generated citations and was sanctioned $4,000 under Rule 11.
Lifetime Well LLC v. IBSPOT.Com, Inc. · Lead Counsel · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
“Lead Counsel submitted a brief containing citations to fake opinions—authorities which did not stand for the propositions asserted, arose from inapposite jurisdictions, or included inaccurate quotations.”
fedcivilprocedure.com ↗
The file →
  • Lifetime Well LLC v. IBSPOT.Com, Inc. involved Lead Counsel and Local Counsel.
  • The brief contained at least eight false case-citation hallucinations generated by AI.
  • The court imposed Rule 11 sanctions and fined Lead Counsel $4,000.
  • The case was in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
  • On 2026-01-26, the court said counsel signed without meaningfully reviewing the filing.
Fined $3K 2026-01-06
A pro se plaintiff filed motions to strike with mostly hallucinated citations; the court awarded fees and dismissed the case.
Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia, P.C., et al. · Ga. Super. Ct. · GA
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia, P.C., et al. involved a pro se plaintiff.
  • Her motions to strike contained six citations, most of them AI hallucinations.
  • The court awarded $2,632 in attorneys’ fees and dismissed the case.
  • Georgia Superior Court, state court in Georgia.
  • January 6, 2026; one motion had all four cited cases as fictional AI-generated hallucinations.
Fined $10K ChatGPT 2026-01-01
A lawyer filed a factum with non-existent authorities and was suspended for 6 months and fined $10,000.
Law Society of Ontario v Lee · Law Society of Ontario Tribunal
“To be clear, it is not professional misconduct for a lawyer to use AI to assist in the preparation of a factum.”
guides.library.queensu.ca ↗
The file →
  • Law Society of Ontario v Lee involved a lawyer sanctioned in 2026.
  • She filed a factum that included non-existent authorities and an authority that did not support her argument.
  • The LSO suspended her licence for 6 months and fined her $10,000.
  • The matter was before the Law Society of Ontario Tribunal in Canada.
  • The page says she used ChatGPT and quotes the tribunal on verifying AI-generated authorities.
Fined Archie 2025-12-19
A response brief contained four problematic citations, including one fabricated citation, and the court imposed Rule 11 sanctions and other restrictions.
Billups v. Louisville Municipal School Distr. · Watson & Norris, PLLC; Jane Watson; Louis Watson; Nick Norris · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · MS
“There's a difference between a seasoned, good lawyer and somebody who uses AI to look like one.”
forbes.com ↗
The file →
  • Billups v. Louisville Municipal School Distr. involved Watson & Norris, PLLC and attorneys Jane Watson, Louis Watson, and Nick Norris.
  • Their response brief contained one totally made-up citation and three citations that misstated holdings.
  • The court imposed sanctions including disqualification, reporting obligations, and restrictions on Watson.
  • The order came from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, dated 2025-12-19.
  • The page says Watson had used an AI tool called Archie only within the firm's litigation-support software, but also used AI elsewhere without verification.
Fined 2025-12-19
A Mississippi federal court sanctioned three attorneys for using AI in an age discrimination case, producing hallucinated citations in that case and others.
Mississippi federal age discrimination case · Jacks Griffith · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · MS
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Three attorneys at Jacks Griffith were sanctioned in a Mississippi federal age discrimination case.
  • They used artificial intelligence and got hallucinated citations in that case and other Mississippi cases.
  • The court imposed sanctions, but the article does not state an amount.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Mississippi.
  • Ordered on Friday, Dec. 19, 2025; Judge Sharion Aycock is listed on the page.
Fined $2K 2025-12-18
The Fifth Circuit sanctioned counsel $2,500 after a reply brief contained hallucinated case citations and counsel gave evasive answers about them.
Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · Fifth Circuit
“Had Hersh accepted responsibility and been more forthcoming, it is likely that the court would have imposed lesser sanctions.”
nortonrosefulbright.com ↗
The file →
  • Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; counsel was sanctioned by the Fifth Circuit.
  • A reply brief contained several hallucinated case citations and misstatements.
  • The court imposed a $2,500 monetary sanction.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; the opinion was by Chief Judge Jennifer Elrod.
  • Published Feb. 18; the court also cited evasive responses and generative AI use to organize the brief.
Fined $77K Gemini 2025-12-18
MIO Legal Consultants LLP filed a defence with AI-fabricated and unsupported case citations, and the court ordered indemnity costs.
Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam [2025] ADGMCFI 0032 · MIO Legal Consultants LLP · Abu Dhabi Global Market Court of First Instance
““The fault for reliance on AI hallucinations as factually accurate lies not with the research programme,  but with the person responsible for conducting the search.””
theaskconsultancy.com ↗
The file →
  • Arabyads Holding Limited v. Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam [2025] ADGMCFI 0032 involved MIO Legal Consultants LLP.
  • The firm filed a 327-paragraph defence containing cases that did not exist or did not support the propositions cited.
  • The court ordered AED 282,508 in indemnity costs, about USD 77,039.
  • The order was issued by the Abu Dhabi Global Market Court of First Instance in Abu Dhabi.
  • On 2025-12-18, Justice Paul Heath KC said the fault lay with the person responsible for the search, not the AI.
Fined $6K 2025-12-16
Blackburn filed a response brief with hallucinated AI-generated case law; Judge Leo Gordon fined him and ordered bar notifications.
Liza Gardner v. Sean "Diddy" Combs · Tyrone Blackburn · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“"Mr. Blackburn confirmed that he indeed used AI that provided him with hallucinated case law and propositions that he then incorporated into his response brief and that he failed to verify on subsequent review," Judge Gordon wrote.”
billboard.com ↗
The file →
  • Liza Gardner v. Sean "Diddy" Combs; attorney Tyrone Blackburn was sanctioned.
  • He used AI and cited hallucinated case law in a response brief.
  • Judge Gordon imposed a $6,000 fine and required bar notifications.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  • Dec. 16 ruling; Blackburn admitted the AI mistakes and the case "Masha" did not exist.
Fined $6K 2025-12-15
A plaintiff’s attorney filed a brief with a hallucinated AI-generated case and legal propositions, and the court sanctioned him under Rule 11.
Gardner v. Combs · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
“The Court found that the plaintiff’s attorney plainly violated Rule 11 by using a hallucinated case; the attorney admitted same.”
weiner.law ↗
The file →
  • Gardner v. Combs involved the plaintiff’s attorney, who filed AI-derived legal propositions and a nonexistent case.
  • The attorney used a hallucinated case in a brief submitted to the court and failed to provide the cited case when challenged.
  • The court imposed a $6,000 fine and required self-reporting to New Jersey and New York licensing entities.
  • The case was in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  • The opinion and order were dated 2025-12-15, and the article says the attorney had been notified by opposing counsel about the questionable citation.
Fined $110K 2025-12-12
Two lawyers filed summary-judgment briefs with 15 nonexistent cases and 8 fabricated quotations; the court dismissed the claims and imposed sanctions.
Couvrette v. Wisnovsky · Stephen Brigandi and Timothy Murphy · U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · OR
“"rather than a correction, Mr. Brigandi attempted a cover-up," and that "he failed at both."”

Cases that don't exist

  • Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC, 345 Or. App. 301, __ P.3d __ (2025)
vaquill.ai ↗
The file →
  • Couvrette v. Wisnovsky; Stephen Brigandi and Tim Murphy were sanctioned.
  • They filed briefs containing AI-fabricated cases and quotations.
  • The court imposed $110,204.38 in sanctions and fees and dismissed the claims with prejudice.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (federal, Oregon).
  • Order dated 2025-12-12; Judge Mark D. Clarke called it an attempted cover-up.
Fined $3K ChatGPT 2025-12-12
Co-counsel Celeste Boyd used ChatGPT to draft and edit portions of briefs in an OnlyFans-related case and was sanctioned $3,000 for failing to verify them.
Celeste Boyd · Celeste Boyd · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“The judge additionally imposed a $3,000 sanction on co-counsel Celeste Boyd, who he said used ChatGPT to draft and edit portions of the briefs but failed to verify the material, Reuters also reports.”
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Celeste Boyd was sanctioned as co-counsel in the OnlyFans case.
  • She used ChatGPT to draft and edit portions of briefs that contained hallucinated material.
  • The court imposed a $3,000 sanction on Boyd.
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; Judge Fred Slaughter; California.
  • The article says she failed to verify the material before filing.
Fined $60K ChatGPT 2025-12-05
An Illinois circuit court sanctioned a law firm $50,000 and an attorney $10,000 for filing post-trial submissions with false AI-generated case citations and quotations.
Jordan v. Chi. Hous. Auth. · Ill. Cir. Ct. · IL
“The Court further emphasized its focus was “not on the misuse of artificial intelligence to conduct unreliable legal research and drafting,” but “the inexcusable submission of false authority and factual arguments to the Court, the subsequent misrepresentations about the extent of the improper conduct, and the failure to take prompt responsibility for errors once discovered.””

Cases that don't exist

  • Mack v. Anderson
klemchuk.com ↗
The file →
  • Jordan v. Chi. Hous. Auth.; Illinois law firm and attorney sanctioned
  • Post-trial filings contained false case citations and quotations generated by AI
  • $60,000 total sanctions: $50,000 firm and $10,000 attorney
  • Ill. Cir. Ct., Illinois
  • Dec. 5, 2025; drafting attorney said she used ChatGPT
Fined $2K 2025-12-03
Gabriel A. Watson filed appellate briefs with two made-up cases and a fabricated quote, and the Oregon Court of Appeals fined him $2,000.
Cohoon v. Ringo · Gabriel A. Watson · Oregon Court of Appeals · OR
“Although artificial intelligence programs may seem to offer a shortcut for a busy attorney in an individual case, at present, they may create a long cut to justice,”
oregonlive.com ↗
The file →
  • Gabriel A. Watson was sanctioned in the Cohoon/Ringo appeal.
  • He filed briefs citing two made-up cases and a fabricated quote from real case law.
  • The Oregon Court of Appeals imposed a $2,000 fine.
  • The sanction came from the Oregon Court of Appeals in Oregon.
  • Dec. 3, 2025; Chief Judge Erin Lagesen called it a "very grave situation".
Fined $16K 2025-12-01
The District of Oregon fined an attorney for citing fake cases and not being adequately forthcoming, candid, or apologetic.
District of Oregon fined an attorney for citing fake cases · US District Court for the District of Oregon · OR
“The US District Court for the District of Oregon fined an attorney $15,500 in December for citing fake cases and not being “adequately forthcoming, candid, or apologetic” about it.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • An attorney was fined in the District of Oregon.
  • The filing used fake cases and the attorney was not sufficiently forthcoming about it.
  • The court imposed a $15,500 monetary fine.
  • US District Court for the District of Oregon, Oregon.
  • December 2025; the article highlights the court's criticism of the attorney's lack of candor.
Fined $2K 2025-12-01
Counsel filed a brief with fabricated cases, a fabricated quotation, and fabricated substantive law; the court struck the brief and imposed sanctions.
Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC · Oregon Court of Appeals · OR
“We also recognize that it has become common to refer to cases and principles fabricated by artificial intelligence as ‘hallucinations.’ We reject that terminology because it obscures both the nature and the seriousness of the situation we face. … [G]enerative artificial intelligence is not perceiving nonexistent law as the result of a disorder. Rather, it is generating nonexistent law in accordance with its design.”
techlaw.osbar.org ↗
The file →
  • Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC involved respondents’ counsel.
  • The brief was littered with fabricated cases, a fabricated quotation, and fabricated substantive law.
  • The court struck the brief and imposed $2,000 in sanctions.
  • Oregon Court of Appeals, Oregon.
  • December 2025; the court said the fabricated law likely resulted from artificial intelligence.
Fined $5K 2025-11-25
Lucas used AI to draft an opening brief without verifying citations, and the Court of Appeal imposed a $5,000 sanction.
County of Los Angeles v. Niblett · Robert W. Lucas · California Court of Appeal, Division One · CA
“It…appears Attorney Lucas used artificial intelligence to prepare the opening brief, filed the brief without verifying the accuracy of the case authority it discusses, and failed to correct his mis citation of cases appearing in the opening brief despite the County’s appellate brief noting these errors.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
  • County of Los Angeles v. Niblett; Robert W. Lucas
  • He admitted he misused artificial intelligence in the opening brief
  • Court of Appeal imposed a $5,000 sanction
  • California Court of Appeal, Division One
  • Nov. 25, 2025; Bendix said Lucas showed troubling disregard for duties as an officer of the court
Fined 2025-11-20
Gordon & Thompson filed an amended particulars of claim with two fake AI-generated authorities; the court made a wasted costs order and declined a separate referral of solicitor Raphael Newton to the SRA.
Ndaryiyumvire v Brimingham City University · Gordon & Thompson · Birmingham County Court
““In my judgement, from the evidence that I have heard, it was not Mr Newton that placed false material before the court, it was administrative staff at his firm.””
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Ndaryiyumvire v Brimingham City University involved Gordon & Thompson and solicitor Raphael Newton.
  • An amended claim was filed with two fake cases generated by AI and later withdrawn.
  • The court made a wasted costs order against Gordon & Thompson and did not make a separate SRA referral of Newton.
  • Birmingham County Court, Birmingham.
  • 20 November 2025; the judge said the failure was in substance a failure of management at the firm.
Fined $3K 2025-11-19
Pro se defendant Paul Kimmel filed briefs with dozens of fake or misrepresented citations, and Chief Judge Hala Jarbou imposed Rule 11 sanctions.
Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Kimmel · Paul Kimmel · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan · MI
“The Court finds this response inadequate and not credible,”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Kimmel; Paul Kimmel was sanctioned.
  • He submitted filings with dozens of misrepresented or fake cases and citations.
  • The court imposed a $2,900 monetary fine under Rule 11.
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
  • Nov. 19, 2025 order by Chief Judge Hala Jarbou; the court said it need not decide whether AI was actually used.
Fined $2K 2025-11-17
Grotke filed a supersedeas petition and opening brief with fabricated legal citations, and the court sanctioned him $1,750.
Schlicter v. Kennedy · California Court of Appeal, Division 2, Fourth Appellate District · CA
“Grotke's spurious citations bear the hallmarks of hallucinated citations produced by generative AI.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Schlichter v. Kennedy; attorney Jeffrey Dean Grotke was sanctioned.
  • He filed a petition and opening brief with fabricated citations generated at least in part using AI.
  • The court imposed a $1,750 sanction payable to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
  • California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, in California.
  • Filed Monday; the order said the citations bore hallmarks of hallucinated citations produced by generative AI.
Fined $2K 2025-11-05
Attorney LeRoy George Siddell filed an opposition with a fake quote and a fabricated citation in a criminal case, and the court sanctioned him $1,500.
People v. Alvarez · LeRoy George Siddell · California Court of Appeal, Fourth District · CA
““Attorney Siddell admitted to violating his professional duty by including a hallucinated citation and misrepresenting the law provided in other opinions.”
lanak-hanna.com ↗
The file →
  • People v. Alvarez involved attorney LeRoy George Siddell.
  • He filed an opposition containing a fabricated quote and a citation to a nonexistent decision.
  • The Fourth District Court of Appeal imposed a $1,500 sanction.
  • The court was the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in California.
  • The page says Siddell admitted using artificial intelligence and failing to check the brief.
Fined $5K 2025-11-04
A declaration with fabricated deposition quotations and citations was filed, and Judge Carlton Reeves ordered $5,000 in fees against the lawyer and client.
Pauliah v. Univ. of Miss. Medical Center · Mr. Begley · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · MS
“Manufacturing "facts," then presenting them to the Court as genuine, threatens to corrupt the Court's analysis and undermine the integrity of the judicial process at the summary judgment stage.”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • Pauliah v. Univ. of Miss. Medical Center; Mr. Begley and Dr. Pauliah were sanctioned.
  • A declaration filed in opposition to summary judgment contained fabricated quotations and manufactured deposition citations.
  • Judge Reeves levied $5,000 total, split $4,000 against Begley and $1,000 against Pauliah.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi; federal; Mississippi.
  • Order dated Nov. 4, 2025; the page says Pauliah admitted using generative AI and the court found bad faith.
Fined 2025-10-29
An applicant’s submission used non-existent or irrelevant case law and legislative provisions, and the adjudicator dismissed the application and awarded full costs.
Sky Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 373 · Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management · QLD
““If the applicant used AI or other sources in preparing the material they submitted, I am not satisfied they checked the accuracy of the information obtained”.”
qlsproctor.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Sky Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 373; the applicant was sanctioned in a body corporate dispute.
  • The submission contained numerous and persistent misrepresentations, including non-existent or irrelevant case law.
  • The adjudicator dismissed the application and awarded full costs to the respondent.
  • Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management, Queensland.
  • 29 October 2025; the adjudicator said the scale of deficiencies amounted to an abuse of process.
Fined $1K ChatGPT 2025-10-23
Counsel filed opposition papers with AI-generated false Louisiana case citations; the trial court sanctioned her and the appellate court affirmed.
In re: Sanctions Order of KENNEY (2025) · Connie P. Trieu · Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit · LA
“Plaintiff's counsel submitted legal authority and citations generated by “A.I.” software without verifying their authenticity.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Burns v. State, 813 So.2d 574
  • Smith v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp., 20-306 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/3/20), 308 So.3d 1216
  • Doe v. Southwest Louisiana Hosp. Ass'n, 02-180 (La. App. 3 Cir. 7/10/02), 833 So.2d 1136
caselaw.findlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • In re: Sanctions Order of KENNEY (2025) sanctioned Connie P. Trieu.
  • She filed pleadings containing three fabricated Louisiana citations and other citation errors.
  • The trial court ordered $1,368 in attorney's fees plus costs.
  • Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, in Louisiana.
  • Decided October 23, 2025; the opinion says the citations were generated by AI and notes ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot were used.
Fined $227 2025-10-17
A pro se litigant filed fabricated case law and legal norms, and the tribunal imposed a monetary sanction of 227 GBP.
Chi Keung Lee & others v Blackpool B&B Limited · First-tier Tribunal
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Chi Keung Lee & others v Blackpool B&B Limited involved a pro se litigant.
  • The filing contained fabricated case law and legal norms.
  • The tribunal imposed a monetary sanction of 227 GBP.
  • First-tier Tribunal, UK.
  • 17 October 2025; the page lists a monetary sanction.
Fined $6K 2025-10-13
A pro se claimant used AI to generate 46 inaccurate or misleading citations, and the tribunal imposed a costs order of 5881 GBP.
Hassan v ABC International Bank · Employment Tribunals
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Hassan v ABC International Bank involved AI-generated citations.
  • The tribunal found 46 inaccurate or misleading citations, including 9 fictitious ones.
  • It imposed a costs order of 5881 GBP.
  • Employment Tribunals, UK.
  • 13 October 2025; the page says the conduct was reckless and unreasonable.
Fined $5K Ghostwriter Legal 2025-10-10
James A. Johnson filed a motion with fabricated AI-generated citations, and Judge Terry F. Moorer reprimanded him and imposed sanctions.
United States v. McGee · James A. Johnson · US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · AL
“Somehow the message still has not been hammered home as the epidemic of citing fake cases continues unabated,”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • United States v. McGee involved James A. Johnson of Loxley, Ala.
  • He filed a motion in a criminal case containing nonexistent legal citations generated by AI.
  • Judge Terry F. Moorer imposed $5,000 in sanctions and reprimanded him.
  • The court was the US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
  • On 2025-10-10, Moorer said basic reprimands and small fines were not enough to deter the misconduct.
Fined $1K 2025-10-10
Edward A. Quesada filed a brief with nonexistent and erroneous citations, and Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín imposed sanctions and ordered CLE.
Oneto v. Watson · Edward A. Quesada · US District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Oneto v. Watson involved Edward A. Quesada of Glendora, Calif.
  • He filed a civil brief containing nonexistent and erroneous case citations.
  • The court imposed a $1,000 sanction and ordered him to take an AI CLE course.
  • The court was the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
  • On 2025-10-10, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín said his conduct violated professional-conduct rules and showed a failure to keep abreast of technology.
Fined 2025-10-10
A junior solicitor filed fabricated or inaccurate AI-produced citations in a native title case, and the Court ordered indemnity costs against the firm.
Federal Court native title case · Federal Court of Australia
cgw.com.au ↗
The file →
  • A junior solicitor and the law firm in a Federal Court native title case
  • Relied on AI-produced citations that were fabricated or inaccurate
  • Court ordered indemnity costs against the law firm
  • Federal Court of Australia
  • 2025-10-10; the article identifies the matter only generally and does not name the AI tool
Fined 2025-10-06
A lawyer filed briefs with AI-fabricated case law in a dispute involving T.D. Jakes, and Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctioned the filing for misrepresentations and fabrications.
Jakes v. Youngblood · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania · PA
“At this point, any attorney—but especially attorneys like [the sanctioned lawyer] with a cosmopolitan, multistate, practice—cannot plead ignorance to justify their use or misuse of AI in drafting legal documents.”
klemchuk.com ↗
The file →
  • Jakes v. Youngblood involved a lawyer sanctioned for AI-fabricated case law.
  • The lawyer submitted court filings containing misrepresentations and fabrications of relevant case law.
  • The court imposed sanctions, but the article does not state an amount.
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.
  • Oct. 6, 2025; the article quotes Judge P. Kevin Castel on AI misuse.
Fined $2K 2025-10-03
Counsel filed an opposition to dismissal with AI-hallucinated citations; the Court of Appeal found misconduct and fined him.
People v. Alvarez · LeRoy George Siddell · California Court of Appeal, Division 1, Fourth Appellate District · CA
“The conduct here is not as egregious as what occurred in Noland.”
ethics-lawyer.blog ↗
The file →
  • People v. Alvarez; counsel submitted an opposition to dismissal in a criminal prosecution matter.
  • The filing contained AI-hallucinated citations and counsel said he relied on staff and did not closely check it.
  • The court sanctioned counsel $1,500.
  • California Court of Appeal, Division 1, Fourth Appellate District.
  • Filed October 3, 2025; the court said the case was disturbing because it involved a criminal defendant’s rights.
Fined 2025-10-02
A Mississippi state court judge imposed monetary sanctions on plaintiffs’ counsel for filing fictitious cases and quotations generated by AI.
FormanWatkins’s Mississippi state court case · Mississippi state court · MS
formanwatkins.com ↗
The file →
  • Mississippi state court case involving plaintiffs’ counsel
  • Counsel filed fictitious cases and quotations generated by AI
  • The judge imposed monetary sanctions
  • Mississippi state court in Mississippi
  • October 2, 2025; described as one of the first Mississippi state-court monetary sanctions over hallucinated case law
Fined $1K 2025-10-01
Michael Fourte filed briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and quotations, and Justice Joel M. Cohen sanctioned him and referred the matter to ethics committees.
Pamela Ader v. JS Property Holdings LLC · Michael Fourte · New York State Supreme Court, New York County · NY
“"the use of AI is not the problem per se; instead, “[t]he problem arises when attorneys abdicate their responsibility to ensure their factual and legal representations to the Court—even if originally sourced from AI—are accurate.””
nydailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
  • Pamela Ader v. JS Property Holdings LLC; Michael Fourte was sanctioned.
  • Fourte filed briefs containing AI-hallucinated citations and quotations, then added more in opposition papers.
  • Cohen sanctioned him and also sent the decision to ethics committees.
  • New York State Supreme Court, New York City, New York.
  • October 8, 2025; Justice Joel M. Cohen said counsel could not delegate candor to a software program.
Fined $5K ChatGPT 2025-10-01
Mr. Laprade filed proceedings with false AI-generated citations and other authorities, and the Superior Court of Quebec imposed a $5,000 penalty.
Specter Aviation Limited c. Laprade · Jean Laprade · Superior Court of Québec
“The Court therefore imposed a $5,000 sanction on the Defendant, both to punish his conduct and to deter similar behaviour in the future.”
gowlingwlg.com ↗
The file →
  • Specter Aviation Limited v. Laprade; Mr. Laprade was sanctioned
  • He filed proceedings with false citations, decisions, and references produced using AI
  • The court imposed a $5,000 penalty
  • Superior Court of Quebec, Quebec
  • October 1, 2025; the court said AI cannot justify inaccurate or fabricated documents
Fined $620 2025-09-29
Mr Lalwani cited a fictitious AI-generated authority in written submissions and was ordered to pay S$800 in personal costs.
Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen · Mr Lalwani Anil Mangan · General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
“It follows that the citation of a fictitious AI-generated authority to the court, whether intentionally or otherwise, is wholly impermissible.”
elitigation.sg ↗
The file →
  • Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen; Counsel for the Claimants
  • Written submissions cited a fictitious authority produced by a generative AI tool
  • Court ordered CC to pay costs personally to the Defendant
  • General Division of the High Court of Singapore
  • 29 September 2025; the judge said fictitious AI-generated authority is wholly impermissible
Fined $18K 2025-09-26
Counsel filed a factum with hallucinated case authorities, and the court later ordered costs paid personally by appellant's lead counsel.
Reddy v. Saroya · Christopher Souster of Nimmons Law Office · Court of Appeal of Alberta · AB
“When used without safeguards, large language models frequently introduce confusion and delay into proceedings, and worse, constitute an abuse of process that may potentially bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”
canadianlawyermag.com ↗
The file →
  • Reddy v Saroya involved the appellant's lead counsel.
  • The factum contained fabricated case authorities and seven cited cases could not be found.
  • The court later ordered $17,550 plus GST payable personally by counsel.
  • Court of Appeal of Alberta, Alberta.
  • The page links the issue to a large language model but does not name a specific tool.
Fined $2K ChatGPT 2025-09-23
Lawrence Chang filed a reconsideration motion with AI-generated bogus citations and the court struck the motion and sanctioned him.
Lawrence Chang · Lawrence Chang · Texas state court · TX
“The court finds “good cause supports the imposition of sanctions in order to deter such conduct in the future, which amounts to serious misconduct that threatens to impugn the integrity of the courts and the administration of justice,” Guerra Gamble said.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Lawrence Chang was sanctioned in a Texas state-court matter involving his motion for reconsideration.
  • He admitted using AI and not checking the accuracy of the citations it produced.
  • The court ordered him to pay $2,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses and struck the reconsideration motion.
  • Judge Maya Guerra Gamble issued the order in Texas state court.
  • Chang said he pasted his draft into ChatGPT’s legal tool to improve his writing.
Fined $24K 2025-09-23
Two lawyers filed motions with at least 55 defective citations; the court trimmed fee sanctions and ordered them to pay opposing firms.
Ibrahim Reyes and Jose R. Olmo-Rodriguez sanctions matter · Ibrahim Reyes; Jose R. Olmo-Rodriguez · U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico · PR
““but the sheer number of inaccurate or nonexistent citations suggests otherwise,””
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Ibrahim Reyes and Jose R. Olmo-Rodriguez were sanctioned in Puerto Rico.
  • They filed motions with at least 55 defective citations that the court said suggested AI use.
  • The court ordered $24,492 in fees, not the nearly $88,000 sought.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
  • Sept. 23 opinion by Chief U.S. District Judge Raúl Arias-Marxuach; the court said the citations were inaccurate or nonexistent.
Fined $24K 2025-09-23
The plaintiffs filed AI-slop-tainted papers, and the court ordered them to pay more than $24,000 in attorney fees as a sanction.
Puerto Rico Soccer League NFP, Corp. v. Federacion Puertorriquena de Futbol · D.P.R. · PR
ripslawlibrarian.wordpress.com ↗
The file →
  • Puerto Rico Soccer League NFP, Corp. v. Federacion Puertorriquena de Futbol; the plaintiffs were sanctioned
  • The filing contained AI slop and hallucinated content
  • More than $24,000 in attorney fees was ordered
  • D.P.R., Puerto Rico
  • Sept. 23, 2025; the article says other courts were following ByoPlanet’s example
Fined 2025-09-22
The court sanctioned plaintiffs’ counsel after briefs in two related cases included AI-generated false citations with real case names but fake quotes and parentheticals.
Seither & Cherry Quad Cities, Inc. v. Oakland Automation, LLC · William G. Tishkoff and Christopher M. Vukelich · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · MI
“At this point, it ‘is no secret that generative AI programs are known to ‘hallucinate’ nonexistent cases, and with the advent of AI, courts have seen a rash of cases in which both counsel and pro se litigants have cited such fake, hallucinated cases, in their briefs,’”
minnlawyer.com ↗
The file →
  • Seither & Cherry Quad Cities, Inc. v. Oakland Automation, LLC; plaintiffs’ counsel William G. Tishkoff and Christopher M. Vukelich
  • Briefs in two related cases contained AI-generated false citations with real case names but fake quotes and parentheticals
  • Judge Behm imposed monetary sanctions and ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to pay defense costs
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan
  • Order issued Sept. 22, 2025; court said the errors were not in bad faith but still warranted deterrence
Fined $600 2025-09-19
A pro se litigant filed papers with fabricated citations, false quotes, and misrepresented legal norms; the court imposed a $600 monetary sanction.
Ali v. IT People Corporation · E.D. Michigan · MI
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Ali v. IT People Corporation involved a pro se litigant.
  • The submission used fabricated citations, false quotes, and misrepresented legal norms.
  • The court imposed a $600 monetary sanction.
  • The case was in E.D. Michigan.
  • Date: 2025-09-19; the database labels the AI use as implied.
Fined 2025-09-15
Justice Mary V. Rosado sanctioned Tyrone Blackburn after his motion papers cited non-existent cases and contained incorrect and false citations.
Monique Facey v. Liane Fisher et al. · Tyrone Blackburn · NY Sup. Ct., NY Cty. · NY
posts.diddydocket.com ↗
The file →
  • Monique Facey v. Liane Fisher et al.; Tyrone Blackburn was sanctioned.
  • His motion papers were riddled with incorrect and false citations.
  • The court awarded sanctions and fees.
  • NY Sup. Ct., NY Cty., New York state court.
  • 2025-09-15; Justice Mary V. Rosado ordered him to explain whether he used AI chatbots.
Fined $10K ChatGPT 2025-09-12
Amir Mostafavi filed appellate briefs with fabricated AI-generated citations and quotations, and the California Court of Appeal sanctioned him $10,000 and referred him to the state bar.
Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. · Amir Mostafavi · California Court of Appeal · CA
“Nearly all of the legal quotations in plaintiff’s opening brief, and many of the quotations in plaintiff’s reply brief, are fabricated,”

Cases that don't exist

  • Schimmel v. Levin (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 81
counselpro.ai ↗
The file →
  • Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P.; attorney Amir Mostafavi was sanctioned.
  • He used ChatGPT and other AI tools to enhance appellate briefs without verifying citations.
  • The court imposed a $10,000 sanction and referred him to the state bar.
  • California Court of Appeal, California; the case was a state appellate decision.
  • The article says 21 of 23 opening-brief quotations were fabricated and the court faulted the filings.
Fined ChatGPT 2025-08-28
A pro se plaintiff filed a brief citing a non-existent Third Circuit case generated by AI, and Judge Karoline Mehalchick sanctioned him.
Allbaugh v. Univ. of Scranton · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · PA
“Rule 11 does not prohibit the use of generative AI, however, it does require parties to verify that they are not submitting briefs to the Court which rely on fictitious cases.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Allbaugh v. Univ. of Scranton, 2025 WL 2484188
cgalaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Allbaugh v. Univ. of Scranton involved a pro se plaintiff sanctioned for an AI-generated fake citation.
  • The plaintiff cited a non-existent Third Circuit opinion in a brief.
  • Judge Karoline Mehalchick imposed sanctions for the misuse of AI and the false citation.
  • The case was in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
  • On 2025-08-28, the court said parties must verify briefs do not rely on fictitious cases.
Fined ChatGPT 2025-08-14
In Mavy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, the court sanctioned Maren Ann-Miller Bam for a brief citing AI-generated fake cases.
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.
Fined 2025-08-01
A Victorian solicitor filed fictional AI-generated cases in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and lost his ability to practise as a principal lawyer, handle trust money and operate his own practice.
Victorian solicitor matter · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
mccullough.com.au ↗
The file →
  • A Victorian solicitor was sanctioned in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
  • He submitted fictional AI-generated cases to the court.
  • He lost his ability to practise as a principal lawyer, handle trust money and operate his own practice.
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia; Australia.
  • August 2025; the page says this was the first Australian lawyer sanctioned for misusing AI in court.
Fined 2025-07-30
A UK law firm filed an application with two AI-generated fake cases, then the claim was struck out with indemnity costs and a wasted costs order was made.
Birmingham City University claim · unnamed UK law firm · Divisional Court
“His Honour Judge Charman found that the solicitor’s and firm’s conduct was improper, unreasonable and negligent, applying the Divisional Court’s June guidance from Ayinde.”
vinciworks.com ↗
The file →
  • Unnamed UK law firm in a Birmingham City University claim
  • Filed an application citing two fictitious AI-generated cases
  • Claim was struck out with indemnity costs and a wasted costs order followed
  • Divisional Court / UK, in a Birmingham City University matter
  • 30 July 2025; fake cases were generated by an AI research feature in legal software
Fined $6K Copilot 2025-07-01
Post-trial filings contained about 30 defective citations generated by Copilot, Gemini, and Grok, and Judge Nina Y. Wang imposed sanctions.
Coomer v. Lindell · Christopher I. Kachouroff; Jennifer T. DeMaster; MyPillow attorneys · U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado · CO
“the “least severe sanction adequate to deter and punish defense counsel in this instance.””
getvoibe.com ↗
The file →
  • Coomer v. Lindell sanctioned Christopher I. Kachouroff and Jennifer T. DeMaster.
  • Their post-trial filings contained about 30 defective citations from Copilot, Gemini, and Grok.
  • Judge Nina Y. Wang imposed $3,000 each, totaling $6,000.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
  • July 2025; in April 2026 Wang issued an order to show cause proposing additional sanctions.
Fined $100 2025-06-24
A lawyer’s written submissions cited non-existent cases, and the court ordered the submissions re-filed and imposed $100 in costs.
Hussein v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) · Federal Court
“The Court confirms that the inclusion of a Declaration, in and of itself, will not attract an adverse inference by the Court.”
clia.ca ↗
The file →
  • Hussein v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) involved written submissions citing cases that did not exist.
  • The court said the real issue was failure to disclose generative AI use.
  • The lawyer had to re-file the submissions and pay $100 in costs.
  • Federal Court, Canada.
  • 2025 FC 1138; the court encouraged parties to alert it when they see fake cases.
Fined $2K 2025-05-20
Lord and Bello filed a response with a hallucinated case citation; Judge Matthewman ordered an AI ethics CLE, reimbursed fees and costs, and fined them.
Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enters., LLC · Timothy Lord; Joel Bello · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · FL
““In the Court's view, there is nothing inherently wrong with an attorney properly and competently utilizing AI or any of its subsets to practice law or litigate cases,””
relativity.com ↗
The file →
  • Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enters., LLC involved Timothy Lord and Joel Bello.
  • They filed a response containing a hallucinated case citation and later withdrew it.
  • Judge Matthewman imposed fees and costs, ordered an AI CLE, and fined Lord $1,000 and Bello $500.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Florida.
  • Order dated 2025-05-20; the article says neither lawyer purposely attempted to mislead the court.
Fined $31K Gemini 2025-05-01
A brief built with CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini used fabricated citations, and the Special Master struck it and ordered costs.
Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates matter · Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates · Special Master
“deeply troubling”
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates matter
  • The firms submitted a brief with fabricated citations generated using AI tools
  • The Special Master struck the brief and ordered $31,100 in costs
  • Special Master; location not stated on the page
  • May 2025; the page names CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini
Fined Google Scholar 2025-04-22
Massar Briggs Law filed court documents with hallucinated footnotes; the court declined referral but ordered indemnity costs.
Murray on behalf of the Wamba Wemba Native Title Claim Group v State of Victoria · Massar Briggs Law · Federal Court of Australia · VIC
“Justice Murphy said it was likely that the false document citations came from using generative AI, which had the capacity to "fabricate" or "hallucinate" information.”
qlsproctor.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Murray on behalf of the Wamba Wemba Native Title Claim Group v State of Victoria; Massar Briggs Law
  • Court documents contained multiple hallucinated footnotes and incorrect citations
  • Court ordered Massar Briggs Law to pay indemnity costs
  • Federal Court of Australia, Victoria
  • 2025; supervisor failed to review remote work and the court found the citations were hallucinated
Fined $2K ChatGPT 2025-02-27
Counsel admitted using ChatGPT to draft filings with fabricated and misrepresented citations; the court imposed a $2,500 sanction and mandatory AI-ethics CLE.
Bunce v. Visual Tech. Innovations, Inc. · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Bunce v. Visual Technology Innovations (1); counsel sanctioned.
  • The page says counsel admitted using ChatGPT to draft filings with fake citations.
  • The court imposed a $2,500 monetary sanction and required CLE.
  • E.D. Pennsylvania, federal court in Pennsylvania.
  • 2025-02-27; the matter involved fabricated, misrepresented, and outdated citations.
Fined $10K 2025-02-24
Aleshire & Wynder filed a writ-of-assistance application with fake and improper citations, and Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan ordered it to explain why a $10,000 fine should not be imposed.
A&T Ceramic Tile eminent domain lawsuit · Aleshire & Wynder, LLP · Fresno County Superior Court · CA
“Based on these observations, the court determines that legal contentions made by counsel for plaintiff were not warranted by existing law as represented through counsel’s signature and filing of the application,” Kapetan wrote in her Feb. 24 ruling.”
fresnoland.org ↗
The file →
  • A&T Ceramic Tile eminent domain lawsuit; Aleshire & Wynder, LLP.
  • The firm’s Dec. 31 filing contained fake and improper citations, including non-existent case law and a non-existent statute.
  • Judge ordered the firm to show cause why a $10,000 fine should not be imposed.
  • Fresno County Superior Court in Fresno, California.
  • Feb. 24 ruling by Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan; the article says the filing listed three attorneys but was signed by Carrie Raven.
Fined $5K in-house AI database 2025-02-01
Attorneys at Morgan and Morgan filed motions citing nine cases, eight fake, and Judge Kelly Rankin revoked the drafting attorney’s pro hac vice admission and fined the lawyers.
Wadsworth v. Walmart · Morgan and Morgan; drafting attorney; supervising partner; local counsel · U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming · WY
“In February 2025, Judge Kelly Rankin revoked the drafting attorney’s pro hac vice admission and fined him $3,000, with $1,000 each for the supervising partner and local counsel who e-signed the filing without reading it.”
gc.ai ↗
The file →
  • Wadsworth v. Walmart; Morgan and Morgan lawyers
  • They filed motions citing nine cases, eight of which were fake, using the firm’s in-house AI database
  • Monetary fine: $5,000 total
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming
  • February 2025; Judge Kelly Rankin also revoked the drafting attorney’s pro hac vice admission
Fined 2025-02-01
Three Morgan & Morgan lawyers were sanctioned after filing motions that cited eight non-existent cases generated by their in-house AI platform.
Morgan & Morgan attorneys · Morgan & Morgan attorneys · federal court
corporatecounselnow.com ↗
The file →
  • Morgan & Morgan attorneys were sanctioned in a federal case.
  • They filed motions with eight non-existent cases generated by their in-house AI platform.
  • The court sanctioned them after finding no reasonable inquiry into the law.
  • The article gives no judge name or exact court location.
  • It says the misconduct occurred in February 2025 and involved Rule 11.
Fined $3K 2025-01-01
Lawyers at Morgan & Morgan were sanctioned, and the drafting attorney was fined $3,000 while his temporary bar admission was revoked.
Morgan & Morgan · Morgan & Morgan
developmentcorporate.com ↗
The file →
  • Morgan & Morgan lawyers were sanctioned in 2025.
  • The drafting attorney was fined $3,000 and had his temporary bar admission revoked.
  • The sanction was a monetary fine plus revocation of temporary admission.
  • Court and jurisdiction are not named on the page.
  • 2025; the page identifies Morgan & Morgan as the largest personal injury firm in the U.S.
Fined 2025-01-01
A law firm filed documents containing fabricated citations generated by AI, and the court ordered it to pay the other party's indemnity costs.
Murray v State of Victoria · Federal Court of Australia
“The Judge cited the “growing problem” of false citations in documents prepared using generative AI tools.”
kennedypartnerslawyers.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Murray v State of Victoria involved a law firm, not an individual lawyer.
  • The firm filed documents containing fabricated citations generated by AI.
  • The court ordered indemnity costs against the firm.
  • Federal Court of Australia.
  • 2025; the judge described a growing problem with false citations in generative AI documents.
Fined $2K ChatGPT 2024-11-04
Judge Fred W. Slaughter imposed $2,000 in sanctions on William Becker Jr. for filing a motion with alleged non-existent case citations and misrepresentations of existing law.
William Becker Jr. · William Becker Jr · US District Court for the Central District of California · CA
“Sanctions were warranted against Becker for “his failure to verify the validity of the AI-generated material, and submitting the AI-tainted Motion to the court,” the judge said.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • William Becker Jr. was sanctioned in the Chris Kluwe-related case.
  • He filed a motion with AI-hallucinated/non-existent citations and misrepresented existing case law.
  • The court imposed $2,000 in sanctions.
  • US District Court for the Central District of California; Judge Fred W. Slaughter.
  • Nov. 4 order; the page says the motion was AI-tainted and Becker was told to show cause.
Fined $2K 2024-11-01
Brandon Monk filed a wrongful-termination brief with fake cases and AI-generated quotes and was fined $2,000 plus ordered to take an AI legal course.
Monk Law Firm · Brandon Monk · U.S. District Court · TX
legal.thomsonreuters.com ↗
The file →
  • Brandon Monk and Monk Law Firm were sanctioned.
  • He submitted a filing with fake cases and AI-generated quotes in a Goodyear wrongful-termination suit.
  • The court fined him $2,000 and ordered an AI legal course.
  • A Texas federal judge imposed the sanction.
  • November 2024; Judge Marcia Crone had ordered him to explain why he should not face sanctions.
Fined $2K ChatGPT 2024-02-12
A brief citing fictitious cases created with AI led the Superior Court of Massachusetts to sanction the attorney $2,000.
Smith v. Falwell · Suffolk Superior Court · MA
“two disturbing developments that are adversely affecting the practice of law”
klemchuk.com ↗
The file →
  • Smith v. Falwell involved lead counsel at the offending law firm.
  • Three filings contained fictitious or non-existent caselaw produced using AI.
  • The court sanctioned the attorney $2,000.
  • Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts.
  • Feb. 12, 2024; the article says ChatGPT and Google Bard were cited as examples of AI that can fabricate information.
Fined $2K Claude 2024-01-01
A plaintiff's brief used Claude-generated citations to two nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, and the court imposed a modest sanctions order.
Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. · Brandon Monk · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas · TX
counselpro.ai ↗
The file →
  • Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.; plaintiff's attorney
  • The brief contained two nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations generated by Claude.
  • The court imposed a $2,000 penalty plus CLE and employer notice requirements.
  • Eastern District of Texas; federal court in Texas.
  • Late 2024; the attorney admitted using Claude without verifying the output.
Fined ChatGPT 2024-01-01
A lawyer filed a brief quoting two made-up cases, and the court ordered costs and required a review of all files for ChatGPT use.
Zhang v. Chen · British Columbia Supreme Court
“As this case has unfortunately made clear, generative AI is still no substitute for the professional expertise that the justice system requires of lawyers.”
calgarydefence.com ↗
The file →
  • Zhang v. Chen involved the lawyer representing Mr. Chen.
  • The brief quoted two made-up cases and used ChatGPT.
  • The court ordered costs and a file-wide review, not a stated dollar fine.
  • British Columbia Supreme Court, British Columbia.
  • 2024 BCSC 285; Justice Masuhara said generative AI is no substitute for lawyers' expertise.
Fined $10K ChatGPT 2023-06-30
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP submitted a brief with hallucinated citations, and the court sanctioned the firm and counsel.
In re: CFI Delegated Shareholder Litigation · Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP · Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware · DE
““The use of ChatGPT was not disclosed to the Court.””

Cases that don't exist

  • Hsu v. Teco Energy, Inc., 2018 WL 5115675
  • Morris v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 2015 WL 7293045
podcasts.apple.com ↗
The file →
  • In re: CFI Delegated Shareholder Litigation against Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
  • A filing included hallucinated citations generated with ChatGPT
  • The court imposed a $10,000 monetary sanction
  • Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Delaware
  • The order noted the use of ChatGPT was not disclosed to the court
Fined $5K ChatGPT 2023-06-22
Steven Schwartz filed six ChatGPT-invented cases in a brief, and Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctioned him, co-counsel Peter LoDuca, and their firm.
Mata v. Avianca, Inc. · Steven Schwartz, Peter LoDuca, and their firm · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctioned Schwartz, co-counsel Peter LoDuca, and their firm $5,000.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Miller v. DLA Piper LLP (US), 923 F.3d 1297
  • Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217
  • Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co. Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339

+3 more

gc.ai ↗
The file →
  • Mata v. Avianca; Steven Schwartz, Peter LoDuca, and their firm
  • Schwartz used ChatGPT and filed six nonexistent decisions with fabricated quotes and case numbers
  • Monetary fine: $5,000
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • June 22, 2023; Judge P. Kevin Castel found they stood behind the fake cases after warning
Fined ChatGPT 2023-06-22
A New York lawyer was sanctioned after filing briefs with fake court cases generated by ChatGPT.
In re Cathleen Siebrecht · Cathleen Siebrecht · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
smallwarsjournal.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Cathleen Siebrecht involved Cathleen Siebrecht, a New York lawyer.
  • She filed briefs citing fake court cases produced by ChatGPT.
  • The court sanctioned her, but the article gives no amount.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  • The page says this happened in 2023 and ties the citations to a ChatGPT hallucination.
Fined $5K 2023-06-08
Cathleen Siebrecht filed documents with fictitious case law and legal arguments, and Judge P. Kevin Castel fined the lawyers involved $5,000.
In re Cathleen Siebrecht · Cathleen Siebrecht · U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico · NM
san.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Cathleen Siebrecht; Cathleen Siebrecht was sanctioned.
  • She submitted documents containing fictitious case law and legal arguments.
  • The court imposed a $5,000 fine.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, federal court in New Mexico.
  • 2023-06-08; the page says this was an early high-profile AI-misuse case.
Fined $15K ChatGPT 2023-01-01
Two lawyers filed a brief with fake cases after one used ChatGPT; the court imposed a $5,000 fine on each lawyer and the firm.
US 2023 sanctions matter involving two lawyers and their firm
“The summaries of the decisions cited in the brief showed “stylistic and reasoning flaws that do not generally appear in decisions issued by United States Courts of Appeals.””
posteo.de ↗
The file →
  • Two lawyers and their law firm were sanctioned in the US.
  • They filed a brief citing non-existent cases and could not produce them.
  • The court imposed a $5,000 fine on each lawyer and the firm, totaling $15,000.
  • US court; federal jurisdiction implied by the cited courts of appeals.
  • In 2023; one lawyer had asked ChatGPT to provide supporting evidence.
Fined $5K ChatGPT 2023-01-01
A lawyer was challenged over seven apparently fictitious cases, asked ChatGPT to summarize them, and the court imposed a $5,000 fine on the two lawyers and their firm.
2023 case in the US district court for the southern district of New York · US District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“the result, said the judge, was “gibberish””
lawsociety.org.zw ↗
The file →
  • 2023 SDNY case involving a lawyer, two lawyers, and their firm
  • Seven apparently fictitious cases were cited and ChatGPT was used to summarize them
  • The court fined the two lawyers and their firm $5,000
  • US District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • 2023; the judge described the ChatGPT output as “gibberish”
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.