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
220
Incidents tracked
35
Incidents in 2026
$41,455
In fines, where reported
4 of 220 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 73 of 220 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 220 incidents. Clear filters

Caught, not sanctioned
The Supreme Court set aside a ruling after the lower court relied on quotations from prior decisions that were verified and found not to exist.
Irma del Socorro Chadid Urueta v Civil, Family and Labour Division of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Sincelejo (STC17832-2025) · Supreme Court of Justice
cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com ↗
The file →
  • Irma del Socorro Chadid Urueta v Civil, Family and Labour Division of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Sincelejo (STC17832-2025) was cited as a foreign example.
  • The lower court relied on quotations from prior decisions that did not exist.
  • The Supreme Court of Justice set aside the ruling and ordered dissemination of the event to the judiciary.
  • The page says there were no apparent consequences for the judges beyond that dissemination order.
  • The article could not determine whether the erroneous quotations came from the parties or the judges.
Caught, not sanctioned
The trial court order in Payne v State contained several AI-generated citations that did not exist or did not support the arguments, and the Georgia Supreme Court vacated it.
Payne v State · Supreme Court of Georgia · GA
“The state justices urged trial judges to examine proposed court orders “with the understanding that artificial intelligence software, with all of its potential risks and benefits, may have been used”.”
thedailystar.net ↗
The file →
  • Payne v State involved a trial court order with bogus citations.
  • The order contained several legal citations that did not exist or did not support the arguments.
  • The Georgia Supreme Court vacated the order; no lawyer sanction amount was stated.
  • Supreme Court of Georgia; Georgia state court.
  • The page says the draft was prepared by the prosecutor with the aid of AI tools.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
They submitted a ChatGPT-produced legal brief to courts that cited fictitious cases.
Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca · Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca
mycase.com ↗
The file →
  • Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca were the lawyers identified on the page.
  • They presented a ChatGPT-produced brief with fictitious cases.
  • No sanction is described on the page, so the outcome is listed as none.
  • The page does not name a court or jurisdiction for the incident.
  • The page says they learned AI’s limitations the hard way and claimed ignorance.
Caught, not sanctioned
A federal judge cancelled a trial and removed all four attorneys after both sides filed briefs citing AI-fabricated case law.
Mississippi Trial Cancelled Over Dual-Counsel AI Hallucinations · MS
github.com ↗
The file →
  • Mississippi Trial Cancelled Over Dual-Counsel AI Hallucinations
  • Both plaintiff and defense counsel filed briefs citing AI-fabricated case law.
  • The judge cancelled the trial and removed all four attorneys.
  • The page identifies this as a federal case in Mississippi.
  • The page says it was the first simultaneous sanction of opposing counsel for the same AI misuse.
Caught, not sanctioned
Judge P. Kevin Castel ordered the firm's attorneys to write apology letters to judges falsely named as authors of fake AI-generated cases.
Levidow, Levidow & Oberman attorneys · Levidow, Levidow & Oberman · federal court in New York · NY
findlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorneys of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman were ordered to respond to AI-fabricated citations.
  • The filing involved fake cases generated by AI that falsely named judges as authors.
  • The court ordered apology letters, not a monetary sanction.
  • Federal court in New York; Judge P. Kevin Castel.
  • The order required letters to each judge falsely identified as the author of a fake case.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A lawyer filed a brief with fabricated case law invented by ChatGPT, and the court sanctioned him after the error was uncovered.
ChatGPT Legal Case Incident
aihealthcarecompliance.com ↗
The file →
  • The page names "The ChatGPT Legal Case Incident" but gives no caption or lawyer name.
  • A lawyer submitted legal filings containing fabricated case law invented by ChatGPT.
  • The court sanctioned him after the error was uncovered.
  • No court, judge, date, or sanction amount is given on the page.
  • The page says Stanford HAI provides detailed analysis of the case.
Caught, not sanctioned
Mann accidentally submitted an early draft brief containing AI-generated references to nonexistent cases and false citations of precedent, and the Reno judge handed down a creative decision.
Mann · Mann · Reno judge · NV
rgj.com ↗
The file →
  • Mann was the lawyer named on the page.
  • He accidentally submitted an early draft brief with AI-generated nonexistent cases and false precedent citations.
  • The page does not state a monetary sanction or other punishment; it only says the judge handed down a decision.
  • The court is identified only as a Reno judge in Nevada.
  • No date, AI tool, or quoted judicial language is given on the page.
Caught, not sanctioned
A filing in Provo's matter allegedly contained fraudulent AI-generated citations, and the page says he was sanctioned or narrowly avoided sanction in the Supreme Court context.
Timothy Robert Provo · Timothy Robert Provo · U.S. Supreme Court
supremecourt.gov ↗
The file →
  • Timothy Robert Provo was the named lawyer/matter on the page.
  • The page says the case exposed fraudulent AI-generated citations in filings.
  • The sanction outcome is not specifically stated on the page excerpt.
  • The court named is the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • No AI tool, date, or quoted judge language is given in the excerpt.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A lawyer submitted filings with AI-generated case citations; the BC Supreme Court declined special costs but held her personally liable for other costs.
Zhang v. Chen · counsel in Zhang v. Chen · British Columbia court · BC
“Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement … Unchecked, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice.”
delcantochambers.com ↗
The file →
  • Zhang v. Chen involved a lawyer who submitted AI-generated case citations.
  • The filings contained hallucinated case law.
  • The BC Supreme Court declined special costs but held her personally liable for other costs.
  • The court was in British Columbia, Canada.
  • The article says the lawyer corrected errors, apologized, and did not intend to deceive.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT-4o
A Stanford professor relied on ChatGPT-4o to draft his declaration, which cited two nonexistent sources and misattributed an author's name, and the court struck it.
Minnesota state challenge · MN
legalnursepdx.com ↗
The file →
  • A Stanford professor on the state's side in the Minnesota challenge was involved.
  • He used ChatGPT-4o to help draft a declaration with two nonexistent sources and a misattributed name.
  • The court struck the declaration after plaintiffs sought exclusion.
  • Minnesota state court in a challenge to the state deepfakes law.
  • The page says the state sought a do-over citing excusable neglect.
Caught, not sanctioned Grammarly
An attorney withdrew after filing an opposition brief alleged to contain non-existent caselaw, fake quotations, and incorrect legal assertions.
Smith v. Athena Construction Group, Inc.
hlc.com ↗
The file →
  • Smith v. Athena Construction Group, Inc.; an attorney representing a relator
  • Opposition brief allegedly contained non-existent caselaw, fake quotations, and incorrect legal assertions
  • The attorney withdrew; no court sanction is stated on the page
  • Federal FCA matter; court not named on the page
  • Page says the attorney used Grammarly and Lexis+
Caught, not sanctioned
The page says a Queensland case involved AI-fabricated citations in materials filed on the applicant's behalf, but it is unclear whether the applicant was represented.
QWYN and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation and business) · Administrative Review Tribunal
qlsproctor.com.au ↗
The file →
  • QWYN and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation and business); an unclear Queensland matter.
  • Materials filed on the applicant's behalf reportedly contained AI-fabricated citations.
  • The page does not state a sanction order for this matter.
  • Administrative Review Tribunal; Queensland.
  • The article says it is not clear whether the applicant was represented.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Two lawyers filed a ChatGPT-generated brief with fabricated court opinions and quotes, and a judge sanctioned them.
Two lawyers sanctioned in 2023
miamidadebar.org ↗
The file →
  • Two lawyers were sanctioned in 2023.
  • They filed a brief generated by ChatGPT with fabricated court opinions and quotes.
  • The page says a judge sanctioned them, but gives no amount.
  • No court, judge, or location is identified on the page.
  • The page cites ChatGPT and warns it can ‘hallucinate’ and be wholly inaccurate.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A lawyer submitted a factum containing fictitious AI-generated case citations, and the court addressed the filing.
Ko v. Li · Ontario Superior Court of Justice · ON
“Ms. Lee forthrightly acknowledges the fact that her factum was created using ChatGPT and contains fake cases.”
canadianlawyermag.com ↗
The file →
  • Ko v. Li is named as a Canadian AI-citation incident.
  • A lawyer submitted a factum with fictitious AI-generated case citations.
  • The page does not state a sanction amount or type for this incident.
  • The court was in Ontario, Canada.
  • The page says the filings showed the risk of generative AI hallucinations.
Caught, not sanctioned
A condo owner filed an AI-generated submission with ghost citations and misquoted laws, and the Tribunal identified the hallucinations.
Janssen v. TSCC 1851 · Condominium Authority Tribunal
condoadviser.ca ↗
The file →
  • Janssen v. TSCC 1851 involved a condo owner before the Condominium Authority Tribunal.
  • He used an AI-generated submission with invented cases and misquoted laws.
  • The Tribunal identified the hallucinations; the post does not report a sanction.
  • The court was the Condominium Authority Tribunal in Ontario.
  • Published October 28, 2025; the article says the Tribunal had already warned the dispute likely fell outside its jurisdiction.
Caught, not sanctioned
A lawyer for MyPillow filed a brief with nearly 30 defective citations, and a federal judge in Colorado ruled on the filing.
MyPillow Inc. defamation case · a lawyer for MyPillow Inc · federal court in Colorado · CO
broadbandbreakfast.com ↗
The file →
  • MyPillow Inc.'s defamation case was singled out in the AP story.
  • A lawyer for MyPillow filed a brief containing nearly 30 defective citations.
  • The article says a federal judge in Colorado ruled on the filing.
  • The page reports the issue as AI-generated/hallucinated citations.
  • No sanction amount or named AI tool is given on the page.
Caught, not sanctioned
Justice J.F. Kenkel found erroneous case citations in defence counsel’s submissions and ordered new submissions without GenAI.
R v Chand · Ontario Court of Justice
“there would be a “discussion” at the end of the trial about how the initial submissions were prepared”
claytonrice.com ↗
The file →
  • R v Chand involved erroneous case citations in defence submissions.
  • The court ordered new submissions without using GenAI.
  • No monetary sanction was imposed.
  • Ontario Court of Justice.
  • The page gives no exact date; Justice J.F. Kenkel said there would be a discussion at trial's end.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Michael Long filed RTKL appeals and court papers with fabricated case citations, and the Borough challenged the filings in county court.
Michael Long · Michael Long · Northampton County Court of Common Pleas · PA

Cases that don't exist

  • Grove v. OOR
  • Pennsylvania State Education v. Commonwealth
  • IN RE S.S., 651 A.2d 174

+5 more

bathborough.org ↗
The file →
  • Michael Long was the requestor in the Bath Borough RTKL dispute.
  • He submitted legal filings and appeals containing fictitious or irrelevant citations.
  • The page reports no sanction order against him, only that the Borough challenged his filings.
  • The matter was in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania.
  • The article says Long used AI and even bragged about using ChatGPT.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A law school intern used ChatGPT for legal research, and an early-draft motion-to-dismiss opinion with fake quotes and misstated outcomes was withdrawn.
Julien Xavier Neals opinion · Julien Xavier Neals · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
“In doing so, the intern acted without authorization, without disclosure, and contrary to not only chambers policy but also the relevant law school policy.”
abajournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Julien Xavier Neals, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
  • A law school intern used ChatGPT and the opinion misstated case outcomes and used fake quotes.
  • The opinion was withdrawn; no sanction is stated on the page.
  • District of New Jersey; federal court.
  • Neals said the intern acted without authorization, without disclosure, and contrary to chambers and law school policy.
Caught, not sanctioned
Attorney Michael Fourte filed a brief using AI citations and quotes, and the court criticized him for relying on unvetted AI.
Michael Fourte · Michael Fourte · New York Supreme Court · NY
“Counsel relied upon unvetted AI – in his telling, via inadequately supervised colleagues – to defend his use of unvetted AI”
cybernews.com ↗
The file →
  • Michael Fourte defended himself in New York Supreme Court.
  • He submitted a brief using AI citations and quotes written with a chatbot.
  • The page does not report a formal sanction or amount for this incident.
  • The court was the New York Supreme Court in New York.
  • Judge Joel Coehn wrote the quoted criticism about unvetted AI.
Caught, not sanctioned
Gordon Rees and Cassie Preston submitted a bankruptcy filing with fabricated citations and faced possible sanctions.
Gordon Rees LLP / Cassie Preston matter · Gordon Rees; Cassie Preston · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Montgomery, Alabama · AL
“pervasive inaccurate, misleading, and fabricated citations, quotations, and representations of legal authority”
abovethelaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Gordon Rees and Cassie Preston were the named parties facing potential sanctions.
  • They submitted a bankruptcy filing with inaccurate, misleading, and fabricated citations.
  • The court issued an order to show cause; no sanction amount is stated on the page.
  • U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Montgomery, Alabama; Judge Christopher Hawkins.
  • In August, Hawkins asked why they should not be sanctioned after the AI-tainted filing.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Michael Cohen gave his lawyer AI-generated citations, and fake cases ended up in a real court filing.
Michael Cohen matter · Michael Cohen · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
“the attorneys’ actions were “embarrassing and certainly negligent.””
medium.com ↗
The file →
  • Michael Cohen and his lawyer were involved.
  • AI-generated citations were given to the lawyer and filed in court.
  • The page says they got sanctioned, but gives no order details.
  • No court, judge, or location is named on the page.
  • ChatGPT is identified as the tool used.
Caught, not sanctioned
A San Diego judge denied sanctions but condemned Tyson & Mendes for miscited and non-existent authority, factual misstatements, and unverified AI-sourced assertions.
Tyson & Mendes · Tyson & Mendes · San Diego court · CA
dailyjournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Tyson & Mendes was the firm criticized by the San Diego judge.
  • The filing contained miscited and non-existent authority and AI-sourced assertions.
  • The court denied sanctions despite condemning the conduct.
  • The court was in San Diego, California.
  • The article does not name an AI tool or quote the judge in the excerpt provided.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Rose Lawyers drafted a will with AI-assisted legal citations; the page does not say any sanctions were imposed.
Re Walker [2025] VSC 714 · Rose Lawyers · Victorian Supreme Court
heirsandsuccesses.com ↗
The file →
  • Re Walker [2025] VSC 714 involved Rose Lawyers drafting the will.
  • The page discusses AI-assisted preparation and verification risks.
  • No sanction or penalty is described on the page.
  • Victorian Supreme Court, Victoria.
  • May 2024 guidelines and a discussion of ChatGPT/Google Gemini appear in the article.
Caught, not sanctioned
The court verified citations in a brief, found false or inaccurate case law, and ordered a procedural measure after the attorney admitted using AI.
Giacomino, César Adrián et al. v. Monserrat, Facundo Damián et al. · Court of Appeals in Civil, Commercial, Family, and Mining Matters of General Roca
iapp.org ↗
The file →
  • Giacomino, César Adrián et al. v. Monserrat, Facundo Damián et al.; attorney unnamed
  • A brief cited false or inaccurate case law, likely generated by AI
  • The court ordered a procedural measure; no sanction amount stated
  • Court of Appeals in Civil, Commercial, Family, and Mining Matters of General Roca
  • No date given; attorney expressly admitted using an AI tool
Caught, not sanctioned
A worker filed submissions with hallucinated legal citations, and the Deputy Registrar said the submission appeared to have been created partly with AI.
A2501051, 2025 CanLII 97422 · British Columbia Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal
“The cases he has cited either do not exist, or do not have anything to do with what he has cited them for.”
oba.org ↗
The file →
  • BC WCAT A2501051, 2025 CanLII 97422 involved a worker's submissions.
  • The submission cited cases that did not exist or were cited for the wrong proposition.
  • No sanction amount or formal sanction is stated; the order addressed the submission's defects.
  • The decision came from the British Columbia Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal.
  • The Deputy Registrar said the submission appeared partly created with AI, and the page says LLMs can 'hallucinate' legal cases.
Caught, not sanctioned
A lawyer cited non-existent cases in written submissions, and the Board disregarded the false citations with no other consequence noted.
Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A. v Sara Ghassi · Trademarks Opposition Board
“Whether accidental or deliberate, reliance on false citations is a serious matter [see Zhang v Chen, 2024 BCSC 285].”

Cases that don't exist

  • Vivat Holdings Ltd v Menasha Canada Ltd, 2001 FCA 278
  • M & M Meats Shops Ltd v M & M Products Inc, 2000 FCT 396
  • Molson Breweries v John Labatt Ltd, [2000] 3 SCR 890

+1 more

clia.ca ↗
The file →
  • Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A. v Sara Ghassi involved a lawyer citing cases that did not exist.
  • The Board disregarded the fake cases and noted no other consequences.
  • No sanction was imposed beyond disregarding the citations.
  • Trademarks Opposition Board, Canada.
  • 2024 TMOB 150; the Board mentioned possible generative AI but named no tool.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
William Norman faced potential sanctions in two counties after ChatGPT created hallucinated quotes and left a prompt in a court document.
William Norman · William Norman
cleveland.com ↗
The file →
  • William Norman faced potential sanctions.
  • ChatGPT created hallucinated quotes and left a prompt in one court document.
  • The page reports potential sanctions but no imposed sanction amount.
  • The court and location are not named on the page.
  • The page says the issue involved two counties and ChatGPT.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Relator’s expert used ChatGPT to draft an expert report with fabricated CMS testimony and bogus citations, and defendants moved to sanction counsel and seek disqualification.
United States ex rel. Khoury v. Mountain West Anesthesia, LLC · U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada · NV
“if fines and public embarrassment were effective deterrents, there would not be so many cases to cite.”
texaslawbook.net ↗
The file →
  • United States ex rel. Khoury v. Mountain West Anesthesia, LLC; relator’s counsel was at issue
  • An expert report used ChatGPT and contained fabricated CMS testimony, invented manuals and miscited regulations
  • Defendants moved for sanctions, fee shifting and disqualification; no sanction order is stated on the page
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, federal court in Nevada
  • Aug. 13 motion; the page says the misconduct may lead to disqualification and dismissal
Caught, not sanctioned
Civil Rights Corps accused Nevada County prosecutors of filing a habeas corpus brief with AI-generated fabricated legal authorities, prompting state Supreme Court attention.
Nevada County prosecutors habeas corpus brief · California Supreme Court · CA
dailyjournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Nevada County prosecutors were accused in a habeas corpus brief matter.
  • Civil Rights Corps said the brief included AI-generated fabricated legal authorities.
  • The page does not report a sanction; only that the issue prompted state Supreme Court attention.
  • California Supreme Court, California.
  • Date and AI tool are not stated on the page.
Caught, not sanctioned
Frederick Knack filed a brief citing a nonexistent Minnesota case and other fake cases generated by AI; the court caught the hallucinations.
State by Sunquist versus Provost · Frederick Knack · Hennepin County Court · MN
“the court wonders if this citation may be the result of an AI generated hallucination”
wral.com ↗
The file →
  • Frederick Knack was the Minnesota attorney named in the filing.
  • He cited a nonexistent 1992 case and other cases after using AI without checking them.
  • The article reports no sanction in this incident.
  • Hennepin County Court in Minnesota was the venue.
  • Judge Lourie Miller said the citation may have been an AI generated hallucination.
Caught, not sanctioned
Three lawyers faced possible career-ending action after AI-generated fake case citations were discovered in a Family Court custody battle.
King's Counsel disciplinary action · Family Court
adelaidenow.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Three lawyers were the subject of the reported action.
  • AI-generated fake case citations were discovered in a custody battle.
  • The reported outcome was possible career loss, not a stated sanction order.
  • The court was Family Court.
  • The article gives no date, judge, tool, or citation strings.
Caught, not sanctioned
A Melbourne law firm filed court documents containing citations fabricated by generative AI.
Melbourne firm busted using AI-fabricated citations · A Melbourne law firm · Court not specified · VIC
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
  • A Melbourne law firm was caught using AI-fabricated citations.
  • The page says court documents contained fabricated citations made by generative AI.
  • No sanction amount or type is stated on the page.
  • The matter is described as Melbourne-based and in court.
  • Published Dec. 31, 2025; no tool or judge quote is given.
Caught, not sanctioned
A partner for National Qatar Bank filed nonexistent case citations generated by an AI tool and faced serious professional consequences.
National Qatar Bank matter · a partner at a firm acting for National Qatar Bank
legalfly.com ↗
The file →
  • A partner at a firm acting for National Qatar Bank was involved
  • He did the same and cited cases that didn't exist
  • The source was an AI tool that hallucinated citations
  • The page says he faced serious professional consequences
  • The article gives no court, date, sanction amount, or tool name
Caught, not sanctioned
A lawyer cited nonexistent cases in court after an AI tool hallucinated legal authorities, and the page says he faced serious professional consequences.
Harringey LBC matter · a lawyer at Harringey LBC
legalfly.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer at Harringey LBC was involved
  • He cited cases in court that didn't exist
  • The AI hallucinated plausible-sounding citations
  • The page says he faced serious professional consequences
  • The article gives no court, date, sanction amount, or tool name
Caught, not sanctioned
Annapolis officials were accused in a federal class action of filing a motion with at least one fake case and phantom quotations, but no sanction had been imposed on the page.
Annapolis City Attorney D. Michael Lyles · D. Michael Lyles · U.S. District Court · MD
“Plaintiffs cannot be sure, but the motion’s inclusion of fabricated citations and quotations are hallmarks of an AI generated motion with ‘hallucinations,’”
thedailyrecord.com ↗
The file →
  • Annapolis City Attorney D. Michael Lyles was named on the page.
  • Plaintiffs alleged the city's motion to decertify cited at least one nonexistent case and misquoted others.
  • The page reports no sanction yet; it says Lyles left the job after the accusation.
  • The matter is described as a federal class-action lawsuit concerning public housing in Maryland.
  • The page says the filing appeared to be an AI-generated motion with 'hallucinations'.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Counsel was said to have filed a letter brief with fabricated AI citations, and Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro dismissed the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
LaPaglia v. Valve Corp. · S.D. Cal. · CA

Cases that don't exist

  • Bassett's Adm'r v. Cunningham's Adm'r, 50 Va. 684
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • LaPaglia v. Valve Corp. involved petitioner's counsel.
  • Valve said counsel submitted a letter brief with AI-fabricated citations.
  • Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro dismissed the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
  • S.D. Cal., federal court in California.
  • The page says the counsel had been recently sanctioned by an arbitrator; ChatGPT was used only in a law-clerk check.
Caught, not sanctioned
Kaʻōnohiokalā J. Aukai IV filed a brief with six flawed citations, including two fabricated ones, and Circuit Judge Kelsey Kawano accepted his apology and imposed no sanctions.
Kaʻōnohiokalā J. Aukai IV case · Kaʻōnohiokalā J. Aukai IV · Hawaiʻi Circuit Court · HI
civilbeat.org ↗
The file →
  • Kaʻōnohiokalā J. Aukai IV was the lawyer named in the article.
  • He filed a brief where all six citations were flawed, including two completely fabricated.
  • Judge Kelsey Kawano accepted the apology and declined sanctions.
  • Hawaiʻi Circuit Court, state of Hawaiʻi.
  • December 17, 2025; Aukai said the flaws were the result of AI hallucinations.
Caught, not sanctioned
Mark Valencia filed a brief with a non-existent case and a misstated Hawaiʻi Supreme Court decision; Judge Jordon Kimura found a Rule 11 violation and said he would sanction him later.
Valencia case · Mark Valencia · Hawaiʻi Circuit Court · HI
civilbeat.org ↗
The file →
  • Mark Valencia was the lawyer criticized in Hawaiʻi Circuit Court.
  • He submitted a brief with a fake case and a misstated Hawaiʻi Supreme Court decision.
  • Judge Kimura found a Rule 11 violation but had not yet set the sanction.
  • Hawaiʻi Circuit Court, state of Hawaiʻi.
  • December 17, 2025; Valencia blamed his associate and said the citations were AI-generated hallucinations.
Caught, not sanctioned
A relator’s legal team filed an expert report with fake citations and fabricated testimony, and the defendants sought sanctions and disqualification.
In re the relator’s legal team · U.S. District Court for the District of Utah · UT
“"The liability for using these new technologies without proper supervision falls squarely on the attorney. AI is a powerful tool, but it lacks professional judgment and a duty of candor to the court. Attorneys must remain the final check, or they will be held accountable for the errors it produces."”
qpwblaw.com ↗
The file →
  • A relator’s legal team in a Utah federal case
  • An expert report contained AI-generated falsehoods, including fake citations and fabricated testimony
  • The defendants moved for sanctions and disqualification; the article says the court permitted withdrawal but did not dismiss the issue
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
  • No date was given; the article attributes the misconduct to a generative AI tool and alleges willful blindness
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A practitioner filed a submission quoting a fictional Court of Appeal judgment generated by ChatGPT, and the judge said it wasted public resources.
LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia · Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal · QLD
“the case simply does not exist”
nicholeslaw.com.au ↗
The file →
  • LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia; a practitioner was involved.
  • A written submission quoted a fictional Court of Appeal judgment generated by ChatGPT.
  • No sanction is stated on the page; the judge said it wasted public resources.
  • Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Queensland.
  • 2025; the judge said 'the case simply does not exist' and 'caused a significant waste of public resources.'
Caught, not sanctioned
An AI-generated fake case was cited in a legal brief filed in his courtroom, and he found it did not exist.
State of Illinois v. Unknown · Jeffrey Goffinet · Williamson County court · IL
““People are going to use [AI], and the courts are not going to be able to be a dam across a river that’s already flowing at flood capacity,””
route-fifty.com ↗
The file →
  • Jeffrey Goffinet noticed a brief in his courtroom cited a nonexistent case.
  • The brief contained AI-generated fake legal material.
  • The article reports no sanction or penalty in this incident.
  • Williamson County, Illinois state court.
  • Last spring; Goffinet said courts must learn to coexist with AI.
Caught, not sanctioned
A mother in person filed a skeleton argument assisted by AI that included non-existent citations, and the court noted the errors.
D (a child) (recusal) · Court of Appeal
“It is entirely understandable that litigants in person should resort to artificial intelligence for help.”
unit.law ↗
The file →
  • D (a child) (recusal) involved a mother acting in person.
  • She filed an AI-assisted skeleton argument for a recusal appeal.
  • The page says some citations did not exist at all.
  • Court of Appeal; no sanction is described on the page.
  • Baker LJ said litigants in person may understandably resort to AI for help.
Caught, not sanctioned
The solicitor filed documents with entirely fabricated AI-generated citations and was formally sanctioned.
Federal Circuit and Family Court matter involving a Victorian solicitor · Federal Circuit and Family Court
legalassistant.au ↗
The file →
  • A Victorian solicitor in the Federal Circuit and Family Court
  • Submitted documents containing entirely fabricated citations generated by AI
  • Formally sanctioned; stripped of principal rights and supervised for two years
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court, Australia
  • A month after the August 2025 incident; first Australian lawyer formally sanctioned for AI-related misconduct
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
An attorney used ChatGPT to draft a brief that cited made-up cases, and the resulting case was later recognized as fabricated.
Varghese v. China Southern Airlines

Cases that don't exist

  • Varghese v. China Southern Airlines
zdnet.com ↗
The file →
  • Varghese v. China Southern Airlines involved an attorney who used ChatGPT to prepare a legal brief.
  • The brief contained legal cases that did not actually exist.
  • The page does not name a sanction in this incident.
  • The article says the problem case was fabricated by ChatGPT.
  • The page gives no judge, court, or sanction date for this incident.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A litigant in person filed a submission using a legal phrase that looked Scottish or American, and the judge said it had the hallmarks of ChatGPT.
Reddan v An Bord Pleanála · High Court of Ireland
“This sounds like something that derived from an artificial intelligence source. It has all the hallmarks of ChatGPT, or some similar AI tool.”
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
  • Reddan v An Bord Pleanála involved a litigant in person.
  • The filing used a phrase not used in Ireland and suggested AI generation.
  • No sanction is described on the page.
  • High Court of Ireland.
  • The judge said it had the hallmarks of ChatGPT or similar AI.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A litigant in person used ChatGPT to draft an appeal submission containing fake cases, and the ruling reiterated that an unrepresented person must not mislead the court.
Barton v Wright Hassell LLP · UK Supreme Court
““an unrepresented person is still under a duty not to mislead the court””
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
  • Barton v Wright Hassell LLP involved a litigant in person.
  • He used ChatGPT to draft a submission with fake cases.
  • The page reports no sanction, only a warning principle from the ruling.
  • UK Supreme Court.
  • The ruling quoted the duty of an unrepresented person not to mislead the court.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Attorneys signed a brief containing AI-hallucinated legal citations and had to respond to a judge's order to explain why they should not be punished.
Jason Alatidd article (Kansas federal court brief) · federal court in Kansas · KS
cjonline.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorneys who signed a Kansas federal-court brief
  • The brief contained AI-hallucinated legal citations
  • They responded to a judge's order to explain why they should not be punished
  • Federal court in Kansas
  • Jan. 8, 2026 article; the AI tool named was ChatGPT
Caught, not sanctioned
The court found briefing with citations to nonexistent judicial opinions potentially derived from generative AI and sanctioned the respondent.
Eric Chibueze Nwaubani · Eric Chibueze Nwaubani · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · NY
websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com ↗
The file →
  • Eric Chibueze Nwaubani was the respondent in the matter.
  • His briefing contained citations to nonexistent judicial opinions.
  • The court imposed sanctions, but the page excerpt does not state a monetary amount.
  • The matter was in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  • The page says the fake citations were potentially derived from generative artificial intelligence.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
The Upper Tribunal held a Hamid hearing over two immigration matters involving incorrect or fake case citations that did not match the cited cases.
UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid) [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“to put client letters and decision letters from the Home Office into an open source AI tool, such as ChatGPT, is to place this information on the internet in the public domain, and thus to breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege, and thus any regulated legal professional or firm that does so would, in addition to needing to bring this to the attention of their regulator, be advised to consult with the Information Commissioner’s Office.”
gowlingwlg.com ↗
The file →
  • UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid) [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) was the latest case discussed.
  • It involved two separate instances of suspected AI-invented or otherwise incorrect case citations.
  • The article says one case looked trivial and the other serious, but the tribunal may not have actually sanctioned anyone.
  • The court was the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).
  • Published 2026-02-24; the article notes the tribunal may have been too quick to cry AI.
Caught, not sanctioned
Counsel filed a brief with fictitious case citations that the Tax Court said were likely generated by AI, but the opinion did not impose sanctions.
Clinco v. Commissioner · Clinco’s counsel · U.S. Tax Court
“Submitting a brief with fictitious caselaw is a recipe for sanctions.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Cacchillo v. Commissioner
  • Miller v. Commissioner
  • Tefel v. Commissioner
currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com ↗
The file →
  • Clinco v. Commissioner involved counsel for the taxpayers.
  • The brief cited nonexistent cases in support of a notice-of-deficiency argument.
  • The Tax Court warned that fake citations can lead to sanctions, but imposed none here.
  • U.S. Tax Court; federal; judge Holmes’s opinion.
  • T.C. Memo. 2026-16; the court said the citations suggested something cooked up by AI.
Caught, not sanctioned
An attorney filed a brief with AI-generated case citations that did not exist and later resigned.
Court records show an attorney resigned after submitting a filing with AI-generated case citations that did not exist
threads.com ↗
The file →
  • An attorney was involved in a filing with AI-generated case citations that did not exist.
  • The filing used fabricated citations generated by AI.
  • No sanction is stated on the page; the attorney resigned.
  • The court is not identified on the page.
  • The page gives no date, judge, or AI tool name.
Caught, not sanctioned
A filing cited nonexistent cases generated by AI, and the Third DCA warned courts should not have to parse citations to see whether cases exist.
Takefman v. Pickleball Club, LLC · Third District Court of Appeal · FL
“courts “should not have to parse case citations and parentheticals to discern whether cases exist.””
miamidadebar.org ↗
The file →
  • Takefman v. Pickleball Club, LLC involved a filing with AI-generated nonexistent cases.
  • The filing contained fabricated legal authority from AI.
  • The court addressed the problem but the page does not report a sanction.
  • Third District Court of Appeal, Florida.
  • The page does not name the AI tool; it quotes the court on checking whether cases exist.
Caught, not sanctioned
A Massachusetts lawyer was sanctioned for filing AI-generated fictitious case citations.
Massachusetts Lawyer Sanctioned for AI-Generated Fictitious Case Citations · Massachusetts state court · MA
amerisurv.com ↗
The file →
  • The page cites a Massachusetts lawyer sanctioned for AI-generated fictitious case citations.
  • The lawyer filed fictitious citations created by AI.
  • The article gives no sanction amount or named judge.
  • Massachusetts state court, Massachusetts.
  • No date or tool name is given on the page.
Caught, not sanctioned
An Alabama Supreme Court sanction targeted an attorney whose briefs cited nonexistent cases, and the court noted he repeated a fabricated citation after being warned.
unavailable · Alabama Supreme Court · AL
toppeconsulting.com ↗
The file →
  • An attorney before the Alabama Supreme Court was sanctioned.
  • His briefs contained citations to cases that did not exist.
  • The page does not state the sanction amount.
  • The court was the Alabama Supreme Court in Alabama.
  • The opinion noted he repeated a fake citation after being told about one.
Caught, not sanctioned
Defendants said plaintiff's attorneys cited six cases that appeared to be fabricated legal citations, but the page does not state any sanction order.
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD
govinfo.gov ↗
The file →
  • Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD involved plaintiff's attorneys.
  • Defendants identified six cited cases that appeared fabricated.
  • The page does not report any sanction imposed.
  • Federal case in an unspecified court.
  • The page gives no date, AI tool, judge quote, or citation strings.
Caught, not sanctioned $2K
A lawyer submitted case citations from a generative AI program in filings to a federal district court without checking their accuracy, and the lawyer was sanctioned.
unidentified lawyer · federal district court
reuters.com ↗
The file →
  • An unnamed lawyer was sanctioned.
  • The lawyer filed citations generated by a generative AI program without checking them.
  • The court imposed a sanction, but the page gives no type or amount.
  • The matter was in federal district court.
  • The page gives no date or AI product name.
Caught, not sanctioned
An expert filed court declarations with AI-hallucinated citations and narrowly avoided sanction, but the page gives no order details.
Stanford Internet Observatory matter · an expert from the Stanford Internet Observatory
“The irony.”
ipwatchdog.com ↗
The file →
  • Stanford Internet Observatory matter and an unnamed expert
  • The expert submitted court declarations containing AI-hallucinated citations
  • No sanction amount or formal sanction is described on the page
  • Court and judge are not named on the page
  • The page quotes the judge's written opinion as 'The irony.'
Caught, not sanctioned
A lawyer filed a brief containing AI-generated issues and case law, and the court addressed the problem in a costs ruling.
Re Gary Man Kin Ng · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Re Gary Man Kin Ng involved a brief containing AI-generated material.
  • The page says the court grappled with issues arising from the lawyer's brief.
  • It does not state a monetary sanction or other sanction imposed.
  • The court was the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
  • The page gives no date, named attorney, or named AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned
In a Quebec Superior Court fraud judgment, the ruling allegedly used AI and cited nonexistent cases and testimony, and the defendants appealed.
Jocelyn Geoffroy decision (Quebec commercial fraud case) · Quebec Superior Court
theglobeandmail.com ↗
The file →
  • Quebec Superior Court commercial fraud case involving Justice Jocelyn Geoffroy's decision
  • Defendants alleged the ruling contained AI hallmarks, including citations to cases that do not exist
  • No sanction is reported on the page; it describes an appeal and possible retrial
  • Quebec Superior Court, Quebec, Canada
  • Published 2026-03-30; the article says the allegation of AI use has not been confirmed
Caught, not sanctioned
Sethi filed a notice of errata identifying hallucinated citations but did not disclose that the prior citations were hallucinations, and the court treated it as inadequate disclosure.
Contreras Pelayo v. Bondi · Mike Singh Sethi · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
“This is not sufficient disclosure.”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • Contreras Pelayo v. Bondi; attorney Mike Singh Sethi filed the errata notice.
  • He sought to replace hallucinated citations without saying the earlier cases did not exist.
  • No separate sanction is stated on the page for this incident.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • The page says the motion failed to disclose that the earlier citations were hallucinations.
Caught, not sanctioned
Thomas Gregory Sylvester filed a brief with AI-fabricated legal citations, and the Fifth Circuit discussed the incident and reaffirmed existing rules govern AI misuse.
In re: Thomas Gregory Sylvester · Thomas Gregory Sylvester · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
jdsupra.com ↗
The file →
  • In re: Thomas Gregory Sylvester; Thomas Gregory Sylvester
  • He filed a brief containing AI-fabricated legal citations
  • No sanction amount is stated; the court said existing rules already govern AI misuse
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
  • The article says the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed no bespoke AI rule is needed
Caught, not sanctioned
GLG Law LLC admitted its brief used generative AI and contained hallucinated citations; the tenant asked the Connecticut Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal and sanction the plaintiff.
Middletown landlord-tenant dispute · GLG Law LLC · Connecticut Supreme Court · CT
ctinsider.com ↗
The file →
  • GLG Law LLC in a Middletown landlord-tenant appeal was accused of AI-made citations
  • The firm said generative AI helped organize, format and review the brief
  • The brief asked for dismissal and sanctions, but no sanction had yet issued
  • Connecticut Supreme Court, Hartford, Connecticut
  • March 3, 2026; the firm said counsel failed to notice AI had made changes before filing
Caught, not sanctioned
A Victorian judge probed Ahmed Dib’s firm after a solicitor filed documents with made-up quotes, non-existent cases and apparent AI hallucinations.
Ahmed Dib’s firm probe · Ahmed Dib · Victorian judge · VIC
afr.com ↗
The file →
  • Ahmed Dib’s firm was probed over the filing.
  • A solicitor allegedly laid documents before the court with made-up quotes and non-existent cases.
  • The article reports a judicial probe, not a stated sanction.
  • The court was in Victoria, Australia.
  • Published Mar. 22, 2026; the piece says the documents showed extensive artificial intelligence hallucinations.
Caught, not sanctioned
Counsel for consumers said a generative AI tool added a hallucinated citation to a brief, which a Boies Schiller associate missed while checking citations.
Amazon supplement labeling lawsuit · Boies Schiller · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · WA
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Amazon supplement labeling lawsuit against Amazon.com Inc.; Boies Schiller was involved.
  • A generative AI tool used to 'harmonize' drafts introduced an AI-hallucinated citation.
  • No sanction is stated on the page; the issue was being explained to the court.
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
  • March 19, 2026 article; a fifth-year Boies Schiller associate missed the error.
Caught, not sanctioned OpenCase
Counsel filed a brief with nonexistent authorities and fake quotations, and the court discharged the show-cause order without imposing sanctions.
Gamez v. County of Fresno · Kevin Little · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California · CA
“the court accepted his explanation that he believed the AI tool had anti-hallucination protection”
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Gamez v. County of Fresno; counsel faced possible sanctions
  • Brief contained nonexistent authorities, fabricated quotations, and unsupported legal representations
  • No sanctions imposed; show-cause order discharged
  • Eastern District of California
  • 2026; court accepted counsel's explanation that he thought the AI tool had anti-hallucination protection
Caught, not sanctioned
Romeyn faced State Bar discipline after a personal injury filing allegedly used AI and contained nonexistent and irrelevant citations.
Steven Thomas Romeyn · Steven Thomas Romeyn · State Bar Court · CA
aol.com ↗
The file →
  • Steven Thomas Romeyn was accused by the State Bar over a personal injury case.
  • He allegedly submitted irrelevant and nonexistent citations in an Orange County Superior Court filing.
  • The State Bar Court had not yet ruled, so no sanction had been imposed on this page.
  • The matter was in Orange County Superior Court in California.
  • He later disclosed using AI and said he had not verified every citation before filing.
Caught, not sanctioned
The complainant admitted his WRC complaint was generated using AI and not fully reviewed, and the adjudicator gave his evidence reduced weight without imposing a sanction.
Ferko v. Beyond Reach Limited · Workplace Relations Commission
““While assistance in preparing complaints is not improper, a complainant remains responsible for the accuracy of allegations made on his behalf.””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Ferko v. Beyond Reach Limited before the Workplace Relations Commission.
  • The complaint was prepared by his sister using AI and was not fully verified.
  • The adjudicator reduced the weight of his evidence; no sanction was stated.
  • Workplace Relations Commission, Ireland.
  • Date not given; the decision emphasized responsibility for accuracy.
Caught, not sanctioned
A respondent said the complainant’s prehearing documents were generated by AI and were inadmissible; the adjudicator noted the materials’ poor quality but imposed no sanction.
Goncalves v. Valshan Unlimited · Workplace Relations Commission
““Unfortunately, for me at least, the tangential scattergun, smorgasbord approaches and references coupled with euphemisms formed outside of Europe approaches of this tool were a poor second to human oversight, I have come to expect and anticipate in actual statement and representation during a case.””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Goncalves v. Valshan Unlimited before the Workplace Relations Commission.
  • AI was alleged in prehearing documents; the adjudicator discussed their quality.
  • No sanction was imposed in the excerpt.
  • Workplace Relations Commission, Ireland.
  • Date not given; the adjudicator criticized the tool’s output and human oversight.
Caught, not sanctioned
GLG Law LLC filed a brief with AI-generated fabricated citations, and the Connecticut Supreme Court was considering sanctions and referral.
GLG Law LLC matter · GLG Law LLC · Connecticut Supreme Court · CT
legalaigovernance.com ↗
The file →
  • GLG Law LLC was identified as having filed the brief.
  • The brief in a landlord-tenant eviction matter contained fabricated citations generated by AI.
  • The Supreme Court was considering referral, monetary sanctions, and future certification requirements.
  • Connecticut Supreme Court, Connecticut.
  • As of March 2026, the final outcome was not confirmed.
Caught, not sanctioned
Brigandi filed briefs containing 15 nonexistent cases and 8 fabricated quotations, even after opposing counsel flagged the earlier errors.
Brigandi
davidkemp.ai ↗
The file →
  • Brigandi was one of the Q1 sanctions cases mentioned on the page.
  • The briefs contained 15 nonexistent cases and 8 fabricated quotations.
  • The page does not state the sanction imposed here.
  • No court, judge, or AI tool is named for this incident.
  • The article says opposing counsel flagged the earlier errors before the later filing.
Caught, not sanctioned
A representative pasted chatbot-supplied fake Supreme Court and Madras High Court citations into the tribunal record; the order was recalled within a week.
Buckeye Trust matter · Bengaluru bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
blog.ipleaders.in ↗
The file →
  • Buckeye Trust matter; the tax department’s representative
  • Pasted chatbot-supplied authorities that did not exist
  • Order was recalled within a week; no monetary sanction stated
  • Bengaluru bench, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
  • Late 2024; a generative chatbot was used for 'supporting authorities'
Caught, not sanctioned $6K
In children proceedings, a father filed applications citing many non-existent cases and the matter was referred upwards.
Father's children proceedings matter · Family Court
legalfutures.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • Father's children proceedings matter; the father was involved
  • The father cited many cases that simply were not real
  • The father was ordered to pay £5,900 in costs and the matter was referred upwards
  • Family Court, Midlands
  • Date not stated; the article says a judge noticed many cited cases were not real
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Plaintiffs' attorneys filed AI-generated bogus case law, and the court issued an order to show cause why they should not be sanctioned.
Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiffs' Attorneys Should Not Be Sanctioned · United States District Court for the District of Wyoming · WY
lib.law.uw.edu ↗
The file →
  • Plaintiffs' attorneys in the District of Wyoming
  • They submitted bogus case law created by ChatGPT
  • The court issued an order to show cause, with sanctions threatened
  • United States District Court for the District of Wyoming
  • 2025; the page links this to a 2025 order and names Judge Kelly H. Rankin
Caught, not sanctioned
The First Department declined to impose sanctions after the defendant cited four nonexistent cases.
NewRez LLC v Morton · Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Department · NY
nycourts.gov ↗
The file →
  • NewRez LLC v Morton involved a defendant cited for using four nonexistent cases.
  • The page says the court declined to impose a sanction.
  • No monetary amount was imposed.
  • The court was the First Department of the New York Appellate Division.
  • The page gives no AI tool, date, or quoted judicial language.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Attorney Harp was ordered to produce his ChatGPT history so the court could determine whether he had submitted hallucinated AI quotations.
Attorney Harp · Attorney Harp · United States District Court, Northern District of California · CA
websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com ↗
The file →
  • Attorney Harp was the lawyer under scrutiny.
  • The issue was whether he submitted hallucinated AI quotations to the court.
  • The court ordered him to produce his ChatGPT history.
  • United States District Court, Northern District of California.
  • No sanction amount was stated; the order was to investigate possible AI misuse.
Caught, not sanctioned
Michael Morgan was sanctioned for signing a brief that included AI-hallucinated citations.
Michael Morgan · Michael Morgan · Wyoming federal court · WY
law.com ↗
The file →
  • Michael Morgan was sanctioned in Wyoming federal court.
  • He signed his name on a brief that included AI-hallucinated citations.
  • The page does not state the sanction amount or type for that order.
  • The court was a federal court in Wyoming.
  • The incident was in 2025; the page does not name the AI tool or quote the judge.
Caught, not sanctioned
A Manhattan big-law firm sent SDNY a letter apologizing for briefs that used fake citations generated by an unnamed AI program, and the court sanctioned the misuse.
In re: [unnamed Manhattan firm letter to SDNY] · a prominent big-law firm in Manhattan · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
lbkmlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • A prominent big-law firm in Manhattan was involved in the SDNY letter.
  • The firm apologized for using fake citations provided by an unnamed AI program.
  • The page does not state a monetary sanction; it describes an apology to the court.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, New York.
  • No date is given; the article says the firm’s review process missed the inaccurate AI citations.
Caught, not sanctioned
The judge punished four lawyers and canceled the civil trial after some of them filed AI-generated fake case citations.
A federal civil trial in Mississippi · federal court · MS
seattletimes.com ↗
The file →
  • A federal civil trial in Mississippi involving four lawyers
  • Some lawyers filed AI-generated fake case citations
  • The judge punished the lawyers and canceled the proceedings
  • Federal court in Mississippi
  • Date not given; the article says the trial was canceled after the fake citations
Caught, not sanctioned
Submissions to the High Court cited non-existent authorities, and the court held lawyers must verify AI research before relying on it.
R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey · High Court of Justice, Divisional Court
“Those who use artificial intelligence to conduct legal research notwithstanding these risks have a professional duty to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.”
lawyersprompt.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey / Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank
  • Submissions cited authorities that did not exist, the hallmark of AI fabrication.
  • No sanction is described on this page; the court instead set a verification duty.
  • High Court of Justice, Divisional Court, England and Wales.
  • [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin); Dame Victoria Sharp P gave judgment and compared AI to a trainee's work.
Caught, not sanctioned
Fake case citations appeared to be AI hallucinations, and the court struck the papers and denied summary judgment.
Gully v Varghese · Sup Ct, Albany Cty · NY
nycivillaw.blog ↗
The file →
  • Gully v Varghese involved fake case citations that appeared to be AI hallucinations.
  • The court struck the offending papers and denied summary judgment.
  • No monetary sanction is stated on the page.
  • Supreme Court, Albany County, New York.
  • The page says future violations could lead to more serious consequences.
Caught, not sanctioned
The court discussed AI disclosure duties after confronting hallucinations and 'misgroundings' in legal submissions.
Michaelis v Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB · Michaelis · unknown
gerberciano.com ↗
The file →
  • Michaelis v Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB is identified by name in the article.
  • The court addressed hallucinations and 'misgroundings' in AI-assisted legal submissions.
  • No sanction is described in the article for this decision.
  • The court is not identified by name in the article.
  • The article says the case discussed disclosure obligations relating to AI use.
Caught, not sanctioned Gemini
An attorney cited an unrelated Supreme Court precedent and later said they had not properly reviewed it after searching with Google Gemini.
Ulsan District Court matter · an attorney at the Ulsan District Court · Ulsan District Court
koreaherald.com ↗
The file →
  • Ulsan District Court matter; an attorney at the Ulsan District Court
  • The attorney cited an unrelated Supreme Court precedent in a filing
  • The page reports no sanction, only the attorney's later acknowledgment
  • Ulsan District Court, South Korea
  • Published June 14, 2026; the attorney said the search was done using Google Gemini
Caught, not sanctioned
An attorney filed a brief citing a nonexistent Supreme Court precedent and then cited another nonexistent case when the court asked for clarification.
Daegu High Court matter · an attorney handling a case at the Daegu High Court · Daegu High Court
koreaherald.com ↗
The file →
  • Daegu High Court matter; an attorney handling a case there
  • The attorney filed a nonexistent Supreme Court precedent and then another nonexistent case
  • The page reports no sanction, only that the court sought clarification
  • Daegu High Court, South Korea
  • Published June 14, 2026; described in a Korean-language JoongAng Ilbo report
Caught, not sanctioned
The Oregon Supreme Court sanctioned litigants in two cases after AI-generated quotes and citations were filed.
Oregon Supreme Court sanctions two cases · Oregon Supreme Court · OR
bizjournals.com ↗
The file →
  • Two cases were sanctioned by the Oregon Supreme Court.
  • Litigants filed AI-fabricated quotes and citations.
  • The page does not state a specific sanction amount.
  • Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon.
  • The article says the orders were issued last week and were the first of their kind.
Caught, not sanctioned
A plaintiff staffing subcontractor admitted using AI to draft, research, and cite-check its brief, which allegedly included fabricated quotations and a non-existent Texas Supreme Court quote.
A2K Inc. v. Fluor Corp. et al. · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas · TX
joneswalker.com ↗
The file →
  • A2K Inc. v. Fluor Corp. et al.; a plaintiff staffing subcontractor
  • The brief allegedly used generative AI and included fabricated quotations and a non-existent Texas Supreme Court quote
  • No sanction is described in the article; Fluor argued the brief should not get a 'do-over'
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
  • June 18 report cited by the article; AI use was admitted and the brief was tied to a motion to dismiss
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Farah Chalisa said she used ChatGPT for stylistic and grammatical review, and the court discussed the resulting AI-related citation problem.
Salah v. Walmart Inc. · Farah Chalisa · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
media.ca7.uscourts.gov ↗
The file →
  • Salah v. Walmart Inc.; Farah Chalisa
  • Chalisa said she used ChatGPT for stylistic and grammatical review
  • The page does not state any sanction or amount for this order
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  • The page names ChatGPT and says Chalisa did not enter an appearance
Caught, not sanctioned
A self-represented litigant filed submissions citing a decision the court could not locate, likely generated by AI, and the court warned AI outputs must be verified.
LMN v STC (No 2) [2025] NZEmpC 46 · New Zealand Employment Court
minterellison.co.nz ↗
The file →
  • LMN v STC (No 2) [2025] NZEmpC 46; a self-represented litigant was involved
  • Filed a citation to a decision the court could not locate, likely AI-created
  • The court warned that AI outputs must be verified before filing
  • New Zealand Employment Court
  • 16 October 2025; no AI tool was named
Caught, not sanctioned
A self-represented appellant filed an appeal with AI-generated citations, and the court questioned him about the documents.
Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163 · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, appellate division
““carried with it risks as well as opportunities”.”
aitken.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163 involved a self-represented appellant.
  • He filed a Notice of Appeal and Summary of Argument with AI-generated material.
  • The court questioned him about the documents after finding cited cases that could not be located or did not support the propositions.
  • No sanction is reported on the page; the outcome described is a court warning, not punishment.
  • The appellate division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia cited Dame Victoria Sharp’s AI caution and said unverified AI research can mislead the court.
Caught, not sanctioned
A practitioner submitted a list of prior cases that did not exist after relying on a practice management software AI feature.
Handa & Mallick [2024] FedCFamC2F 957 · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
lst.org.au ↗
The file →
  • Handa & Mallick [2024] FedCFamC2F 957 involved a practitioner
  • The practitioner filed a list of prior cases that simply did not exist
  • The page says he relied on practice management software’s AI feature
  • The matter was in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
  • The page does not report a sanction or date for the court response
Caught, not sanctioned
The court found three cited authorities did not appear to exist and ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
Hernandez v. Lopez · Federal court
“While the Court does not prohibit counsel from using generative AI tools, counsel must comply with Rule 11(b), including confirmation that cases cited within a brief exist.”
completeaitraining.com ↗
The file →
  • Hernandez v. Lopez was a trademark dispute.
  • The brief contained three cited authorities that did not appear to exist and were likely hallucinated.
  • The court issued an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
  • Federal court; jurisdiction and state were not identified on the page.
  • The page quotes the court on Rule 11 and verifying cited cases.
Caught, not sanctioned
The Home Office refused an asylum claim relying on a Morocco CPIN that the judge said bore hallmarks of AI hallucination and may not exist.
Moroccan woman's asylum claim · Home Office · UK Upper Tribunal
“if the citation was an AI 'hallucination', that would be 'analogous to relying on bogus evidence' and represent a procedural irregularity.”
aiweekly.co ↗
The file →
  • Home Office refused a Moroccan woman's asylum claim.
  • The refusal relied on a Morocco CPIN dated July 2021 that could not be located.
  • No sanction was imposed in the article; the judge flagged a possible procedural irregularity.
  • UK Upper Tribunal, not further specified.
  • The judge said the letter bore hallmarks consistent with artificial intelligence.
Caught, not sanctioned
The Supreme Court set aside NCLT and NCLAT orders that cited non-existent judgments, described as likely AI hallucinations.
National Company Law Tribunal / National Company Law Appellate Tribunal orders · Supreme Court of India
theweek.in ↗
The file →
  • NCLT and NCLAT orders were set aside by the Supreme Court
  • The tribunals cited judgments that did not exist
  • The article describes the false precedents as likely AI hallucinations
  • The ruling came from the Supreme Court of India
  • The page gives no lawyer or firm name and no specific citation strings
Caught, not sanctioned
Defense counsel filed a sanctions motion alleging plaintiffs used inaccurate AI-generated citations in discovery in an Uber passenger sexual assault bellwether case.
MDL No. 3084 · Northern District of California · CA
yipinstitute.org ↗
The file →
  • Defense counsel alleged plaintiffs used inaccurate AI-generated citations in discovery.
  • The page says a sanctions motion was filed, but no sanction order is described.
  • Northern District of California, federal court.
  • No date, no named judge, and no AI tool are given.
Caught, not sanctioned
A party quoted text from paragraph 150 of a decision that only has 124 paragraphs, and the tribunal flagged the AI misuse.
Re X Corp. · British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal · BC
slaw.ca ↗
The file →
  • Re X Corp.; a party filed the material
  • The party quoted a block of text from paragraph 150 of a decision with only 124 paragraphs
  • No sanction is reported on the page; the tribunal flagged the misuse
  • British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal, British Columbia
  • 2025 BCCRT 1228; the article describes it as a fake quote from a real decision
Caught, not sanctioned
The appellate court reversed a trial ruling that relied on fictitious case citations copied from a defense filing.
H. C. v. Contreras · California 5th District Court of Appeal · CA
blogs.lse.ac.uk ↗
The file →
  • H. C. v. Contreras involved fictitious case citations in a trial ruling.
  • The ruling appeared to have been copied from the defense attorney’s filing.
  • The appellate court reversed the trial judge’s ruling.
  • California 5th District Court of Appeal; California.
  • Late May 2026; the opinion said the trial court abused its discretion.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Michael Best was cited as an example of a lawyer or firm facing sanction risk for submitting AI-generated filings with fabricated citations.
Michael Best · Michael Best
lexology.com ↗
The file →
  • Michael Best was named on the page as a real incident reference.
  • The page says it involved AI-generated filings with fabricated citations.
  • No specific sanction amount or order is stated on the page.
  • No court, judge, or location is identified on the page.
  • The page links the problem to ChatGPT and fabricated legal guidance.
Justice Kenneth Salinger denied T. Michael Morgan’s pro hac vice motion after he was sanctioned in Wyoming for filing motions citing eight nonexistent AI-hallucinated cases.
T. Michael Morgan · T. Michael Morgan · Suffolk County Superior Court · MA
“Morgan has made no showing that he has learned from his mistakes in that case.”
aei.org ↗
The file →
  • T. Michael Morgan of Morgan & Morgan was the attorney involved.
  • He had been sanctioned in Wyoming for motions citing eight non-existent cases hallucinated by the firm’s AI.
  • The Massachusetts court denied his pro hac vice motion; no amount is stated here.
  • Suffolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts.
  • May 2026; Justice Kenneth Salinger cited Morgan’s failure to meet ethical standards.
Caught, not sanctioned
The claimant used a generative AI tool to draft submissions with inaccurate and wholly inaccurate case-law references, and the tribunal ignored the legal points.
O Ilunga v Portico Cooperate Reception Management Ltd · Mr Green · Employment Tribunal
“It became apparent that the claimant had used a generative AI tool to assist her in producing her written submissions.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • O Ilunga v Portico Cooperate Reception Management Ltd; claimant used AI-assisted submissions
  • Written submissions included case-law references that were not always accurate and some wholly inaccurate
  • No sanction was imposed; the tribunal disregarded the legal principles asserted
  • Employment Tribunal
  • 9 March 2026; respondent said checking the citations would take considerable time and cost
Caught, not sanctioned
A pro se plaintiff filed a 112-page brief opposing a motion to dismiss that contained at least two entirely fabricated case citations.
pro se plaintiff
jdsupra.com ↗
The file →
  • A pro se plaintiff was identified in the article, not a named lawyer or firm.
  • He filed a 112-page brief opposing a motion to dismiss.
  • The brief contained at least two entirely fabricated case citations.
  • No sanction or court order is described on the page.
  • The page gives no court, judge, date, or AI tool name.
Caught, not sanctioned
A tribunal found a respondent relied on cases it could not find and prepared the grounds of appeal with an AI tool, engaging the tribunal’s resources.
Another Four UK AI Hallucination cases (AI and non‑AI fabricated/false citations) (24 in total): November Shows How Quickly the Problem Is Escalating Internationally · tribunal
“The tribunal is aware of the growing use of artificial intelligence and it would appear that an AI tool was used to prepare the Respondent’s grounds of appeal.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • The page describes an unnamed respondent before a tribunal.
  • The grounds of appeal relied on cases the tribunal could not find or recognize.
  • No sanction is stated on the page.
  • A tribunal found the respondent’s appeal materials were AI-prepared.
  • The page says the tribunal’s resources were disproportionately engaged.
Caught, not sanctioned
Jones Walker filed briefs containing AI-generated fake citations, and the court later slammed the lawyers over the false statements to the court.
Lee · Jones Walker · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
grassley.senate.gov ↗
The file →
  • Lee; Jones Walker was the firm involved
  • The firm filed briefs containing AI-generated fake citations
  • The court addressed false statements to the court but the page does not state a sanction
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, New Jersey
  • No date, AI tool, or judge quote is provided on the page
Caught, not sanctioned
COFC said the plaintiff relied on fabricated AI-generated case law and called the filing an unacceptable abuse of the adversary system.
Sanders v. United States · U.S. Court of Federal Claims
“the court emphasized citing non‑existent cases generated by AI constitutes an “unacceptable” “abuse of the adversary system.””
smithlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Sanders v. United States involved fabricated AI-generated case law.
  • The plaintiff relied on fake authorities to advance arguments.
  • The page reports no specific sanction order in this incident.
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims, federal court.
  • 2025; COFC said such filings will not excuse jurisdictional defects.
Caught, not sanctioned
The self-represented appellant used AI and cited four cases that did not exist; the tribunal granted an adjournment and then recorded the false citations so others would not repeat them.
Huish v The Commissioners for HMRC · UK First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)
““We attach no blame to him, since he is a litigant in person but we have recorded the names so that others do not fall into the same trap.””
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Huish v The Commissioners for HMRC; the appellant himself
  • He relied on four AI-generated cases that were later found not to exist
  • No sanction imposed; the tribunal granted an adjournment and recorded the names
  • UK First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)
  • 2026; the appellant was self-represented and the tribunal noted it attached no blame
Caught, not sanctioned
An attorney filed a legal document created using generative AI, and the court addressed the filing.
In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · PA
pacourts.us ↗
The file →
  • In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, an attorney filed a legal document created using generative AI.
  • The page does not state any hallucinated citations or identify a named attorney or firm.
  • No sanction amount or sanction type is given on the page.
  • The court is the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania.
  • The page gives no date, AI tool, or quoted judicial reasoning.
Caught, not sanctioned
Similar AI-citation misconduct occurred, but the court declined sanctions because the disciplinary commission was already reviewing the misconduct and the attorney was surrendering his law license.
In re R.L. · IL
ripslawlibrarian.wordpress.com ↗
The file →
  • In re R.L. is the final Illinois appellate case discussed.
  • The attorney’s filing contained similar fabricated or misrepresented citations.
  • The court declined sanctions while the disciplinary commission reviewed the conduct.
  • Illinois court; no judge is named on the page.
  • The attorney was surrendering his law license.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A relator’s expert submitted a report with AI-generated hallucinations, including fabricated government testimony and fake citations, and the relator withdrew the expert after the court was alerted.
U.S. ex rel. Khoury v. Mountain West Anesthesia LLC · U.S. District Court for the District of Utah · UT
bassberry.com ↗
The file →
  • Mountain West Anesthesia FCA case and one of the relator’s experts
  • The expert’s report contained AI-generated hallucinations, including fake citations
  • The court was alerted and the relator withdrew the expert; sanctions were sought but not imposed on the page
  • Utah federal court, Utah
  • September 2025; the expert acknowledged using ChatGPT
Caught, not sanctioned
Reeves filed AI-generated or unverified citations and faced discipline over the misuse.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OBA v. REEVES · Reeves · OK
“The careless use of generative artificial intelligence to "save time" by not independently confirming citations is instead a waste of judicial resources and ...”
law.justia.com ↗
The file →
  • STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OBA v. REEVES.
  • Reeves was disciplined over AI-generated or unverified citations.
  • No monetary sanction is stated in the provided text.
  • An Oklahoma state proceeding.
  • The page says generative AI was used to "save time" without independently confirming citations.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
A Denver attorney accepted a 90-day suspension after an investigation found he used ChatGPT to help draft a motion containing fabrications.
Unnamed Colorado disciplinary case · Denver attorney · Colorado Supreme Court · CO
“like an idiot”
cronkitenews.azpbs.org ↗
The file →
  • Unnamed Colorado disciplinary case; a Denver attorney was sanctioned.
  • The attorney denied using AI, but the investigation found ChatGPT helped draft a motion with fabrications.
  • He received a 90-day suspension.
  • Colorado Supreme Court; Colorado.
  • The article gives no date beyond saying the case was recent; it quotes the attorney saying he hadn’t checked the work.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT
Takefman cited the nonexistent case Hernandez v. Gilbert in two filings, but the court accepted his apology and did not sanction him.
Takefman matter · Earl Takefman · court not named on page · FL

Cases that don't exist

  • Hernandez v. Gilbert
nbcnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Earl Takefman was the pro se litigant in a Florida matter.
  • He used ChatGPT and cited the imaginary case Hernandez v. Gilbert in two filings.
  • The court forced him to explain why he should not be sanctioned, then imposed none.
  • Florida; court not named on the page; state jurisdiction.
  • The page says the judge admonished him and later accepted his apology.
Caught, not sanctioned
Kathleen Wilson was sanctioned in a separate bankruptcy case after admitting she submitted filings with AI hallucinations.
Kathleen Wilson · Kathleen Wilson · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana · LA
mississippifreepress.org ↗
The file →
  • Kathleen Wilson was sanctioned in a separate case.
  • She admitted submitting filings with AI hallucinations.
  • The article does not state the sanction type or amount in that case.
  • U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana; Louisiana.
  • The page says the sanction happened back in March, but gives no full date or judge quote.
Caught, not sanctioned
Defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss with inaccurate citations; the court issued an order to show cause, and the firm denied using AI.
Ringer v. Bank of America, N.A. · Bank of America defense counsel · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · GA
“multiple inaccurate quotations or citations”
triallawyersjournal.com ↗
The file →
  • Ringer v. Bank of America, N.A. and defense counsel
  • Motion to dismiss contained inaccurate citations and quotations
  • No sanction yet; court issued an order to show cause
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
  • November 2025 order; firm said Westlaw/manual research was used
Caught, not sanctioned
One party cited authorities that the court said appeared to be AI 'hallucinations,' but no sanction is reported on the page.
Blinds to Go Inc. c. Blachley · Superior Court of Québec
“Justice Lukasz Granosik noted that the cited authorities appeared to be AI "hallucinations" with no basis in law.”
lazaruslegal.com ↗
The file →
  • Blinds to Go Inc. c. Blachley; one of the parties
  • Cited authorities appeared to be AI hallucinations
  • No sanction is stated on the page
  • Superior Court of Québec
  • 2025; Justice Lukasz Granosik made the observation
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-07-28
A filing in Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2143 v. Robibaro cited a fictitious case, and the Condominium Authority Tribunal of Ontario flagged the fake citation.
Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2143 v. Robibaro · Condominium Authority Tribunal of Ontario

Cases that don't exist

  • Waterloo Standard Condominium Corporation No. 697 v. Bugeja (Ontario Superior Court)
courtready.ca ↗
The file →
  • Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2143 v. Robibaro involved a fictitious citation.
  • The filing cited Waterloo Standard Condominium Corporation No. 697 v. Bugeja as real authority.
  • The tribunal flagged the citation as fictitious; no sanction is stated on the page.
  • Condominium Authority Tribunal of Ontario; Ontario.
  • 2026-07-28; the page gives the specific fake citation but no AI tool or judge quote.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-07-21
Both sides filed briefs with factitious citations and misrepresentations of precedent, and the court struck the objections and related filings.
Evans v. Robertson (4) · E.D. Mich. · MI
“The Court ruled that even a single factitious citation violates its orders and justifies striking filings.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Mitan v. Campbell
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Evans v. Robertson (4); both plaintiff and defendant filings were implicated
  • Briefs contained factitious citations and misrepresentations of precedent
  • The court struck the objections and related filings
  • E.D. Michigan, federal court
  • 2026-07-21; prior sanctions were reiterated and further violations were warned against
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-07-16
A DOJ lawyer filed a response citing a nonexistent Sixth Circuit case; Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou chastised the filing but imposed no sanctions.
Daghra v. Hinkley · Carolyn Almassian · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan · MI
““It should be obvious that any attorney who uses AI must scrupulously review its work product to ensure that the cited cases exist and that the citations accurately and fairly represent the underlying case law,””

Cases that don't exist

  • Taylor v. Hott
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Daghra v. Hinkley; DOJ lawyer Carolyn Almassian was tied to the filing.
  • The response cited a nonexistent Sixth Circuit case and was said to likely use generative AI.
  • Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou did not sanction the government.
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  • 7/16/26; the judge warned future filings must not include nonexistent case law.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-07-15
A pro se appellant filed a brief with false AI-hallucinated citations and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed without reaching the merits.
In Re Estate of Acciavatti · Kotchka · Arizona Court of Appeals · AZ
“Reliance on Gen-AI does not excuse or ease this requirement.”
mvclawgroup.com ↗
The file →
  • Kotchka, a pro se appellant, filed a brief with false AI-hallucinated cites.
  • He relied on Gen-AI and did not independently verify the citations.
  • The court affirmed the trial court’s order and did not consider the appeal on the merits.
  • Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona.
  • The page quotes the court saying reliance on Gen-AI does not excuse the filing requirement.
Caught, not sanctioned $30K Westlaw Precision 2026-07-14
A lawyer filed fabricated case law, and the court imposed a CLE sanction, civil contempt, and an adverse costs order.
In re Rosslyn2016, LLC, et al. · S.D. Texas (Bankruptcy) · TX
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Rosslyn2016, LLC, et al.; lawyer not named on the page.
  • The filing used Westlaw Precision and contained fabricated case law and misrepresented case law.
  • The court ordered CLE, civil contempt, and an adverse costs order totaling $29,877.
  • S.D. Texas (Bankruptcy); federal bankruptcy court in Texas.
  • 2026-07-14; the page flags a disputed vendor claim.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-07-08
The CPS filed extradition submissions containing two nonexistent authorities, likely from AI, and the court identified a failure to verify the document.
Tobosaru and Tofan · High Court
“the critical failing as the fact that the reviewing lawyer did not properly check the accuracy of the document before it was filed and served”
searchthe.law ↗
The file →
  • Tobosaru and Tofan is the named case.
  • Two cited authorities in the CPS’s submissions did not exist.
  • The CPS said the citations were likely from artificial intelligence.
  • The court was the High Court in London.
  • Decided 8 July 2026; the article says the operative cause was human error in failing to verify.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-07-01
Counsel filed a brief with fictitious citations and a corrected brief that kept the fabricated legal synthesis; the court ordered the lawyer and firm to show cause.
Leiske v. Kidd · Richard P. Rollo; Richards, Layton & Finger · Delaware Court of Chancery · DE
“"Counsel cannot discharge those obligations by relying on a paralegal, much less on an artificial intelligence program."”

Cases that don't exist

  • Perconti v. Thornton Oil Corp.
litigationsentinel.com ↗
The file →
  • Leiske v. Kidd involved Richard P. Rollo and Richards, Layton & Finger.
  • The brief used a GenAI tool, then was corrected but still kept the false legal synthesis.
  • Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will ordered them to show cause; no sanction amount was imposed yet.
  • Delaware Court of Chancery, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • July 1, 2026; the court said counsel cannot rely on a paralegal or AI to discharge obligations.
Caught, not sanctioned OpenLaw 2026-06-25
Hilary B. Miller filed two briefs with misstated holdings, erroneous citations, and fabricated quotes, and Judge Vernon D. Oliver took sanctions under advisement.
Barteca Intermediate Holdings LLC et al. v. Tacobarn Newtown LLC et al. · Hilary B. Miller · U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · CT
“"Rule 11 is clear," Judge Oliver said, referring to a federal civil procedure rule that requires lawyers to ensure their arguments are supported by current law or a good-faith basis for modifying current law.”
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Barteca Intermediate Holdings LLC et al. v. Tacobarn Newtown LLC et al.; Hilary B. Miller
  • Miller filed two briefs with misstated holdings and erroneous citations after using AI research tools
  • Judge Oliver did not immediately sanction him and took the matter under advisement
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut in Connecticut
  • June 25, 2026; the briefs also contained fabricated quotes and 16 total citation errors
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-06-03
The Québec Superior Court set aside a labour arbitrator’s decision after finding the arbitrator used AI to draft reasons containing false, non-existent authorities.
Association des ressources intermédiaires d'hébergement du Québec (ARIHQ) c. Santé Québec - Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal · Michel Jeanniot · Québec Superior Court
“Material parts of the arbitrator’s reasons relied on false references to authorities.”
canliiconnects.org ↗
The file →
  • Association des ressources intermédiaires d'hébergement du Québec (ARIHQ) c. Santé Québec - Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal; labour arbitrator's decision was challenged
  • The arbitrator’s reasons were written with the assistance of artificial intelligence and contained false references to authorities
  • The court set aside the decision; no monetary sanction is stated
  • Québec Superior Court, Québec
  • June 3, 2026; the court described the references as non-existent and “delusional”
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-05-20
Pro se plaintiffs used AI to draft filings and submitted fabricated legal authority; the court discussed the misconduct but imposed no sanction in this decision.
Torres v. Spraker · Jose Torres and Aidria Torres · Supreme Court, Montgomery County · NY

Cases that don't exist

  • Gurpreet Kaur v Desso, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129902
  • Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 779 F. Supp. 3d 341, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78895, 2025 WL 1195925
  • Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443
nycourts.gov ↗
The file →
  • Torres v. Spraker; Jose Torres and Aidria Torres were the parties using AI.
  • They admitted using artificial intelligence to draft legal documents and cited no caselaw.
  • The court noted AI is not legal authority and discussed fabricated citations.
  • Supreme Court, Montgomery County, New York; Judge Rebecca A. Slezak.
  • May 20, 2026; the opinion cited Mata and other AI-citation cases, but imposed no sanction here.
Caught, not sanctioned Claude 2026-05-15
A motion to quash included Claude-generated phantom quotations, and the lawyers apologized to the court; the page does not report a sanction order.
AFGE v. Trump · Binnall Law Group PLLC; Jason Greaves; Jesse Binnall; Lindsay McKasson · US District Court for the Northern District of California · CA
““While I reviewed the cited cases generally to confirm their applicability, as well as many other cases that I reviewed, I did not double check the quotations and obviously did not read the cited cases carefully,” Greaves wrote.”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • AFGE v. Trump involved Binnall Law Group PLLC lawyers.
  • Jason Greaves used Claude Console to draft a motion to quash a subpoena.
  • The motion included “phantom” quotations, prompting apologies to the court.
  • Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California, California.
  • Date: 2026-05-15; the page describes the misuse but reports no sanction order.
Caught, not sanctioned Claude 2026-05-06
A court filing in the Trump layoffs case contained phantom legal quotations generated by Claude Console, prompting sanctions scrutiny.
Trump layoffs court filing involving phantom legal quotations · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · NY
incidentdatabase.ai ↗
The file →
  • Trump layoffs court filing involving phantom legal quotations
  • Claude Console generated the false legal quotations in the filing
  • The page does not say a sanction was imposed
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
  • 2026-05-06; the incident was about fabricated quotations, not citations
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-04-29
A pro se plaintiff filed a brief with fabricated citations while seeking leave to amend; the court struck the motion for AI errors and procedural violations.
Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Company · D. Ariz. · AZ
“While the use of [generative AI] is not necessarily problematic, the failure to confirm the accuracy of the filing is. ... Plaintiff’s pro se status does not relieve her of this requirement.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Company involved a pro se plaintiff.
  • Her brief included at least two fabricated case citations and an irrelevant real case.
  • The court struck the motion from the record.
  • D. Ariz., federal court in Arizona.
  • April 29, 2026; the court said the filing was not verified for accuracy.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-04-29
A self-represented appellant cited two nonexistent cases and one irrelevant real case; the court treated all issues as waived and affirmed summary judgment.
Nisland Asset Investment, LLC v. Gericke · Iowa Ct. App. · IA
“We do not have a double standard for those represented by counsel and those who are unrepresented – we expect all to follow our procedures. … We have repeatedly stressed that self-represented litigants and attorneys alike have a duty to independently verify the authenticity and veracity of all sources and assertions when relying on artificial intelligence tools to prepare trial or appellate court filings.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Nisland Asset Investment, LLC v. Gericke involved a self-represented homeowner.
  • Her appellate brief cited two nonexistent cases and one irrelevant real case.
  • The court deemed every issue waived and affirmed summary judgment.
  • Iowa Court of Appeals, state court in Iowa.
  • April 29, 2026; the court emphasized independent verification of AI-assisted sources.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2026-04-22
Sullivan & Cromwell filed an emergency motion with AI hallucinations and inaccurate citations, then apologized and corrected the filing before any sanctions order.
In re: Prince Global Holdings Ltd. · Sullivan & Cromwell LLP · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York · NY
reuters.com ↗
The file →
  • In re: Prince Global Holdings Ltd.; Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
  • A court submission contained fabricated or misquoted case citations from AI hallucinations
  • No sanction is stated in the article; the firm apologized
  • U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
  • 2026-04-18; the article says the filing was made on April 18 and involved AI hallucinations
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-04-13
Joanne Jones filed an appeal using undisclosed generative AI with incorrect citations and references; the Commission dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds and did not take the matter further.
Sentinel Community Services Pty Ltd v Clark Chesaites · Ms Joanne Jones · NSW Personal Injury Commission
“the deployment of undisclosed generative AI has not affected or perverted the result of this application and for this Ms Jones and Sentinel should be grateful”
carternewell.com ↗
The file →
  • Sentinel Community Services Pty Ltd v Clark Chesaites involved Ms Joanne Jones.
  • Jones used undisclosed generative AI in appeal materials and submissions.
  • The Commission did not impose a sanction and dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.
  • NSW Personal Injury Commission, New South Wales.
  • 13 April 2026; the materials contained incorrect citations and misdated Barden v Walgett Shire Council.
Caught, not sanctioned $3K 2026-04-09
A brief produced using AI contained citations to nonexistent authorities and fictitious holdings, and the court addressed defendants' request to strike it.
Hulvat v. Gumina · Illinois Appellate Court, Third District · IL
“Robert’s reliance on fictitious authority is a pervasive, nascent, and very serious issue afflicting courts as the use and reliance on generative AI in preparing legal filings becomes more commonplace. … Robert’s self-represented status does not excuse his misuse of AI. … A monetary penalty in this context should impress upon all litigants the caution one must undertake when utilizing AI in brief preparation and the solemnity of filing documents before the court.”
ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net ↗
The file →
  • Hulvat v. Gumina involved a brief produced using AI.
  • The brief contained citations to nonexistent authorities and fictitious holdings.
  • The court considered defendants' request to strike the brief.
  • Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, Illinois.
  • The page does not name an attorney, firm, date, AI tool, or a sanction amount.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-04-09
In a shareholder dispute, a lawyer cited non-existent case law and the Enterprise Chamber noted AI had “run amok”; the case ended in a settlement.
Lawyer blunders at Enterprise Chamber with fictional case law · Enterprise Chamber
“Judges spoke of AI that had “run amok”.”
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in a shareholder dispute was involved.
  • The lawyer cited non-existent case law and corrected filings produced new fictional ECLI numbers.
  • The case ended in a settlement and no sanction is stated.
  • Enterprise Chamber.
  • 9 April 2026; judges said AI had “run amok”.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-04-06
A pro se plaintiff filed motions citing fabricated quotations and a nonexistent proposition; the court struck one motion and denied another.
Hardy v. Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, et al. · E.D. Mich. · MI
“Courts and opposing counsel are burdened by the careless use of AI by pro se filers.”
fisherphillips.com ↗
The file →
  • Hardy v. Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, et al. involved a pro se filer.
  • His motion to consolidate cited fabricated quotations from two real Sixth Circuit opinions.
  • The court struck the consolidation motion and denied the motion to compel.
  • E.D. Mich., federal court in Michigan.
  • April 6, 2026; the court blamed careless AI use by pro se filers.
Caught, not sanctioned CoCounsel 2026-04-03
A brief prepared using Westlaw’s CoCounsel contained errors, and the Sixth Circuit noted them in a per curiam decision.
U.S. v. Farris · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
ediscoveryllc.com ↗
The file →
  • U.S. v. Farris involved a brief prepared using Westlaw’s CoCounsel.
  • The court found errors in the brief prepared with the AI tool.
  • No sanction is described on the page for this incident.
  • Sixth Circuit, federal court.
  • Per curiam order dated 2026-04-03; the page says the tool appears to have been used after August 2025.
Caught, not sanctioned Eve 2026-03-27
Ross LeBlanc filed briefs citing a real decision but quoting passages that did not exist, and the mistake was flagged with sanctions being sought.
Ross LeBlanc · Ross LeBlanc · 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge · LA
businessinsider.com ↗
The file →
  • Ross LeBlanc, a Dudley DeBosier partner, was linked to the filings.
  • He filed briefs with quotes that did not exist in a real court decision.
  • The court had not yet imposed sanctions; opposing counsel sought them.
  • 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
  • March 27, 2026 letter; LeBlanc said he started using Eve to draft pleadings.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2026-03-23
A solicitor filed appeal grounds with a fake citation and later admitted likely using Google’s AI mode and ChatGPT; the Upper Tribunal criticized the conduct but imposed no sanction.
UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department · UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
“The Upper Tribunal pointedly noted that it cannot afford to have its limited resources absorbed by representatives who place false information before the Tribunal.”
briefonline.com.au ↗
The file →
  • UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department involved a solicitor on the record.
  • He filed grounds of appeal containing a false citation and initially denied AI use.
  • The tribunal noted the conduct but did not impose a sanction in this article.
  • UK Upper Tribunal (IAC), England and Wales.
  • March 23, 2026; the article says the solicitor likely used Google’s AI mode and had used ChatGPT for client emails and summaries.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-03-19
Panas filed an AI-written appellate brief with fake citations, and the court said the brief could be stricken but chose not to impose monetary sanctions.
Sheerer v. Panas · Thomas Panas · First District Court of Appeal, Division Four · CA
“Respondent’s conduct in this regard is a patent violation of the Rules of Court and alone, merits striking his brief.”
metnews.com ↗
The file →
  • Sheerer v. Panas; Thomas Panas was the self-represented respondent.
  • He admittedly wrote his appellate brief using AI and included fake citations.
  • The court did not strike the brief and chose not to impose monetary sanctions.
  • First District Court of Appeal, Division Four, California.
  • Filed Thursday before March 23, 2026; Judge Ann C. Moorman said the conduct merits striking the brief.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-03-16
A Rotterdam lawyer previously called out for AI-hallucinated case law again submitted non-existent judgments at the same court, and the court disregarded the reliance on that purported case law.
Lawyer previously reprimanded again cites AI case law · a Rotterdam lawyer · Rotterdam court
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
  • A Rotterdam lawyer was involved again after an earlier callout.
  • The lawyer submitted non-existent judgments at the same court.
  • The court disregarded the reliance on the purported case law.
  • Rotterdam court.
  • 16 March 2026; the page does not state a sanction.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-03-03
The CPS filed submissions citing two non-existent legal cases in an extradition appeal, and the High Court accepted its apology without imposing sanctions.
Tobosaru v Court of Law Craiova, Romania [2026] EWHC 1720 (Admin) · Crown Prosecution Service · High Court
“It would be naive to assume that there will not be an increasing use of artificial intelligence in legal work in future; indeed, that may be both necessary and beneficial.”
newgatesolicitors.com ↗
The file →
  • Tobosaru v Court of Law Craiova, Romania [2026] EWHC 1720 (Admin); Crown Prosecution Service
  • CPS submissions in an extradition appeal cited two non-existent legal cases
  • No sanction was imposed; the court accepted the CPS’s apology and found no deliberate attempt to mislead
  • High Court
  • July 6, 2026; the false references were likely to have originated from generative artificial intelligence
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-02-17
The Chief Justice-led bench flagged lawyers filing AI-drafted petitions that cited non-existent judgments, including one styled Mercy vs Mankind.
Mercy vs Mankind · Supreme Court of India
“There was a case of Mercy vs Mankind which does not exist,”

Cases that don't exist

  • Mercy v. Mankind
m.economictimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Mercy vs Mankind was cited before the Supreme Court of India.
  • The court said a fictitious judgment had been cited and that it does not exist.
  • No sanction was reported in the article.
  • Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
  • Feb. 17, 2026; Justice Nagarathna recalled the fake case.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-02-17
The page identifies a second UK AI hallucination case involving false authorities, but gives no named lawyer, firm, or sanction details in the excerpt.
Brightwaters Energy Limited v Eroton Exploration and Production Company LTD [2026] EWHC 296 · [D's representative] · High Court
“The reference to the 2014 case was the result of AI hallucination.”
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Brightwaters Energy Limited v Eroton Exploration and Production Company LTD [2026] EWHC 296
  • Second AI hallucination case mentioned on the page
  • The excerpt does not name the lawyer or firm involved
  • High Court, England and Wales
  • No sanction details are provided in the text shown
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-02-09
Counsel filed a Tax Court brief with fabricated case citations that the court said appeared to be hallucinations generated by a large language model AI.
Clinco v. Comm’r · U.S. Tax Court
“Submitting a brief with fictitious caselaw is a recipe for sanctions and a clear violation of Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
carakerlawfirm.com ↗
The file →
  • Clinco v. Comm’r involved counsel for the taxpayer in Tax Court.
  • The brief relied on mostly fabricated cases, and 3 of 4 cited cases did not exist.
  • The court did not impose a sanction in this described outcome.
  • U.S. Tax Court, federal jurisdiction.
  • Filed February 9, 2026; the article says the citations appeared to be hallucinations generated by a large language model AI.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-01-28
A protester filed a bid protest with hallucinated or unverified legal citations, and GAO dismissed the protest but declined to impose sanctions.
Bramstedt Surgical Inc. · Government Accountability Office
““close and careful attorney supervision, fact-checking, and citation-checking are absolute necessities when utilizing AI or any of its subsets.””
govconjudicata.com ↗
The file →
  • Bramstedt Surgical Inc. was the protest at issue.
  • The protest filing included citations GAO said had hallmarks of unverified AI/LLM drafting.
  • GAO dismissed the protest and declined sanctions.
  • The forum was the Government Accountability Office in federal bid protest practice.
  • GAO issued its decision on 2026-01-28 and warned that non-existent case law can lead to sanctions.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-01-21
Jones filed an appellate brief with non-existent quotations attributed to real cases, and the Seventh Circuit declined to sanction him.
Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't · Solomon Jones · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · IL
“our reaction to the quotation errors in Jones's brief.”
jhany.com ↗
The file →
  • Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't; Solomon Jones, a pro se litigant, was the subject of the court's review.
  • His appellate brief attributed quotations to cases that did not contain them.
  • The Seventh Circuit stopped short of imposing any sanction.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; federal; Illinois.
  • Jan. 21, 2026; the panel suspected AI hallucination but found no reason to believe the misstatements were knowing or intentional.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-01-16
Mingione filed two motions to strike that allegedly contained AI-hallucinated quotes and nonexistent cases; sanctions were sought against him and his client.
J. Salvatore & Sons Inc. v. Gencor Contracting Corp. · Nicholas Mingione · Connecticut Superior Court in Danbury · CT
“"a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal."”
ctinsider.com ↗
The file →
  • J. Salvatore & Sons Inc. v. Gencor Contracting Corp.; Nicholas Mingione was accused
  • He filed two motions to strike with bogus and hallucinated case law, including citations that did not exist
  • Philip Russell sought sanctions, but the article reports only a request, not an imposed sanction
  • State Superior Court in Danbury, Connecticut
  • Jan. 16, 2026; Mingione said his legal research software had an AI component
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-01-07
The court issued an order in a pro se case addressing AI use and requiring citation verification.
Hollinger v. Enlisted Ass’n of the Nat’l Guard of the United States · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · VA
bakerbotts.com ↗
The file →
  • Hollinger v. Enlisted Ass’n of the Nat’l Guard of the United States
  • A pro se matter triggered an EDVA AI-related case-specific order
  • No sanction or amount is stated on the page
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
  • Jan. 7, 2026; cited as one of two recent EDVA examples
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-01-01
A trial court order cited AI-generated non-existent case law, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to vitiate the order because the legal reasoning was otherwise correct.
Gummadi Usha Rani and another v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao and another · Andhra Pradesh High Court · AP
““This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. Merely because non-existing citations were referred due to the use of Artificial Intelligence Tool, without due verification, the order would not be vitiated, when the law stated in the order and its application is correct”.”
verdictum.in ↗
The file →
  • Gummadi Usha Rani and another v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao and another involved a trial court order with AI-generated citations.
  • The Judicial Officer admitted the citations were AI-generated, used in good faith, and later found untraceable.
  • The High Court did not set aside the order; it said the erroneous citations alone did not vitiate it.
  • Andhra Pradesh High Court, India; Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari.
  • Date not stated in the article; the court warned AI may fabricate authorities and urged verification.
Caught, not sanctioned 2026-01-01
Plaintiff’s counsel admitted using AI to prepare a factum that included a nonexistent quote and mismatched principles; the court said AI misuse would affect costs.
RSR Road Surface Recycling v. Bonnechere Excavating et al. · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
lawtimesnews.com ↗
The file →
  • RSR Road Surface Recycling v. Bonnechere Excavating et al.; counsel for plaintiff
  • AI was used to prepare the factum and produced hallucinated material
  • The court said AI misuse would be factored into costs
  • Ontario Superior Court of Justice
  • 2026; counsel admitted using AI software
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-12-18
The court voided the control procedure and canceled a repayment claim after finding the plaintiff's cited case law did not match published decisions.
Tribunal judiciaire de Périgueux, n° 23/00452 · Tribunal judiciaire de Périgueux (Pôle social)
“requested the plaintiff and his lawyer to check in future that references found via search engines or generative AI are not hallucinations.”
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
  • Tribunal judiciaire de Périgueux, n° 23/00452; the plaintiff and his lawyer
  • Plaintiff cited case-law references that did not correspond to published decisions
  • No sanction was imposed; the court instead canceled the repayment claim
  • Tribunal judiciaire de Périgueux (Pôle social), Périgueux, France
  • 2025-12-18; court warned to verify references from search engines or generative AI
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-12-17
A brief cited fake cases, and Judge Johnston did not impose sanctions, likely because the litigant was pro se.
In Halpern v. FRB of N.Y. · Northern District of Illinois · IL
tresslerllp.com ↗
The file →
  • In Halpern v. FRB of N.Y. involved fake-case citations.
  • The court received a brief citing fake cases but imposed no sanctions.
  • The article says leniency was likely due to the pro se litigant.
  • Northern District of Illinois, federal court in Illinois.
  • Dec. 17, 2025; Judge Johnston was one of the judges mentioned.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-12-15
The court found the reopening request relied on non-existent case law, likely from uncontrolled AI use, and treated the conduct as bad faith and disruptive.
Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent, ECLI:BE:ORGNT:2025:JUG.20251215.1 · Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
  • Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent; the company
  • The reopening request cited non-existent case law likely produced by uncontrolled AI
  • The court found bad faith and disruption but imposed no stated sanction
  • Ghent, Belgium
  • 2025-12-15; insolvency proceedings before the commercial court
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2025-12-10
A pro se claimant used ChatGPT to generate fabricated case law, and the tribunal awarded a preparation time order of £2,178 stayed pending appeal.
Mr J Harrison v Mr D May t/a Leeds Gymnastics Academy · Employment Tribunals (Leeds)
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Mr J Harrison v Mr D May t/a Leeds Gymnastics Academy involved AI-generated citations.
  • ChatGPT generated fabricated case law in the pleadings.
  • The tribunal awarded a preparation time order of £2,178, stayed pending EAT appeal.
  • Employment Tribunals (Leeds), UK.
  • 10 December 2025; the page says the payment was stayed pending appeal.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-12-09
The court found the plaintiff had cited case-law references that could not be located, indicating hallucinated AI-generated references, but imposed no sanctions.
Tribunal argentino apercibe a abogado que utilizó inteligencia artificial para redactar escrito con jurisprudencia inexistente · Cámara del Trabajo - 1ra Circ. - Viedma
“However, the court did not impose any sanctions, as the incident occurred before a relevant regulation came into force.”
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
  • Tribunal argentino apercibe a abogado que utilizó inteligencia artificial para redactar escrito con jurisprudencia inexistente; the plaintiff's lawyer
  • The plaintiff filed a brief with uncitable case-law references likely generated by AI
  • No sanctions were imposed because a relevant regulation was not yet in force
  • Cámara del Trabajo - 1ra Circ. - Viedma, Argentina
  • 2025-12-09; the court warned against AI hallucinations
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-12-04
A brief cited fake cases, and Judge Pallmeyer did not impose sanctions, likely because the litigant was pro se.
Dorsey v. Ponce et al · Northern District of Illinois · IL
tresslerllp.com ↗
The file →
  • Dorsey v. Ponce et al involved fake-case citations.
  • The court received a brief citing fake cases but imposed no sanctions.
  • The article says leniency was likely due to the pro se litigant.
  • Northern District of Illinois, federal court in Illinois.
  • Dec. 4, 2025; Judge Pallmeyer was one of the judges mentioned.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2025-12-04
McGuire Woods filed a brief with fake citations, and the court sanctioned the lawyer and ordered the firm to explain itself.
Ringer v. Bank of America · McGuire Woods LLP · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · GA
“In other words, the Court must be concerned with the message sent to other lawyers, firms and non represented parties as to the consequences of cutting corners, by using tools such as ChatGPT or even AI modules offered by reputable legal research databases without adequate care, or otherwise failing to verify the accuracy of citations and assertions in legal filings.”
tcpaworld.com ↗
The file →
  • Ringer v. Bank of America; McGuire Woods LLP was involved.
  • A lawyer filed a brief containing a ton of fake cites.
  • The court sanctioned the lawyer and required the firm to explain itself.
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
  • Dec. 4, 2025; the court said careless citation errors must not be tolerated.
Caught, not sanctioned Gemini 2025-12-04
The court declined to transfer the case and noted that counsel had cited AI-generated authorities, but no sanction order is described on the page.
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation · N.D. Ga. · GA
copyrightalliance.org ↗
The file →
  • In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation; counsel
  • The page says counsel cited AI-generated authorities in the case
  • No sanction order is described on the page
  • N.D. Ga. in federal court, Georgia
  • 2025-12-04; the page mentions Gemini among AI tools
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-11-13
A law firm inadvertently filed a brief with two AI-generated fake citations, then promptly acknowledged the error and took remedial actions that satisfied the court.
Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Peacock · Buchalter · U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · OR
“one cited case was “totally fake” and another was “almost real” because there is a case with the name, but it is a state case instead of a federal case as indicated.”
reuters.com ↗
The file →
  • Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Peacock; a law firm was involved
  • The firm filed a brief containing two AI-generated fake citations
  • The court did not impose sanctions after the firm acknowledged the mistake and remedied it
  • U.S. District Court for Oregon
  • Nov. 12, 2025; the court found the firm’s forthright response sufficient
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-11-10
Plaintiff's counsel filed briefs with hallucinated case citations and quotations, and the court issued a show-cause order but later discharged it.
Doe v. Univ. of N.C. Sys. · U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina · NC
“The Court has refrained from discharging the show cause order pending counsel's preparation of the article.”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • Doe v. Univ. of N.C. Sys.; Plaintiff's counsel
  • Counsel filed documents with two nonexistent cases and hallucinated quotations
  • Show-cause order issued, but no sanction imposed after the article
  • W.D.N.C., federal court in North Carolina
  • Order date: 2025-11-10; Chief Judge Martin Reidlinger said the article could help other lawyers
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2025-11-10
Cal State filed a brief with faulty quotes and phantom quotations that an administrative law judge struck from the record.
California State University brief striking order · California State University · California Public Employment Relations Board · CA
“while “there is no proof that AI was, in fact the author” of a Cal State brief, the document “bears all the hallmarks of the hallucinations associated with AI-generated texts” and contains a series of misquotes Cal State failed to explain.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Marshall v. Regis Educational Corporation
laist.com ↗
The file →
  • California State University was the party whose brief was struck.
  • The brief contained faulty quotes and phantom quotations from a 1981 decision.
  • Administrative Law Judge Bernhard Rohrbacher ordered the filing struck from the record.
  • The matter was before the California Public Employment Relations Board in California.
  • CSU later acknowledged the brief had been written with AI assistance.
Caught, not sanctioned Google AI Overview 2025-11-04
A lawyer filed material using Google AI Overview that contained fabricated and misrepresented case law, and the court dealt with the AI misuse without listing a sanction.
Choksi v IPS · High Court
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Choksi v IPS involved a lawyer's AI-assisted filing.
  • Google AI Overview was the named source of the fabrications.
  • The entry lists fabricated and misrepresented case law but no sanction.
  • High Court, UK.
  • 4 November 2025; the page names Google AI Overview as the tool.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-11-01
A plaintiff's lawyer quoted non-existent BGH decisions; the Frankfurt court condemned inventing citations and using chatbot-suggested sources.
Frankfurt court · Frankfurt court
“it is “among the fundamental obligations of the legal profession neither to invent citations nor to include unverified sources suggested by a chatbot in a court filing.””
posteo.de ↗
The file →
  • Plaintiff's lawyer in Frankfurt quoted fake BGH decisions.
  • The court addressed 'AI hallucinations.'
  • No sanction is described on the page.
  • Frankfurt court, Germany.
  • Ruling from November of the prior year; court stressed lawyers must not invent citations.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-10-15
A self-represented party filed a brief with nonexistent or misstated cases, and the court denied costs because the brief was of no use.
T.B. v. K.M. · Saskatchewan family law division

Cases that don't exist

  • A.M. v. C.H., 2019 SKQB 162
  • Baker v. Baker, 2007 ONCA 329
  • R.C. v. R.C., 2013 NSC 71

+1 more

grllp.com ↗
The file →
  • T.B. v. K.M. involved K.M.'s filed brief with fake or misstated cases.
  • The court found the cited authorities did not exist or were misrepresented.
  • The court refused to award K.M. costs, effectively penalizing the misuse.
  • Saskatchewan family law division, Saskatchewan.
  • October 15, 2025; the judge said K.M. was responsible for ensuring the cases existed.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-10-09
A Massachusetts attorney filed a brief with faulty GAI-generated content, and the court order on the defendant’s supplemental motion addressed the filing.
Commonwealth v. Moraes · Middlesex Superior Court · MA
bostonbar.org ↗
The file →
  • Commonwealth v. Moraes involved a Massachusetts attorney.
  • The brief included faulty GAI-generated content.
  • The page does not state any sanction was imposed.
  • Middlesex Superior Court, Massachusetts.
  • October 9, 2025; the article cites a memorandum and order on the defendant’s supplemental combined motion to dismiss.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-10-01
Gordon Rees apologized after filing a bankruptcy paper riddled with inaccurate and non-existent citations generated by AI.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani incident · Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani · U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Alabama) · AL
“Counsel shall not file or otherwise present to the court any documents which contain AI-hallucinated citations or fictitious or non-existent legal citations.”
compliancehub.wiki ↗
The file →
  • Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani was involved in the incident.
  • Its bankruptcy filing contained inaccurate and non-existent AI-generated citations.
  • The page says the firm received monetary sanctions and a warning, but gives no amount here.
  • U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Alabama; federal.
  • October 2025; the firm promised updated AI policies and a cite-checking policy.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2025-09-30
Jisuh Lee filed a factum with ChatGPT-generated fake cases and later admitted she misled the court about who prepared it; the court treated it as criminal contempt.
Ko v. Li · Jisuh Lee · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
““Delivering a factum containing non-existent legal submissions creates a serious risk of a miscarriage of justice.””
benmor.com ↗
The file →
  • Ko v. Li involved lawyer Jisuh Lee and a factum with fabricated authorities.
  • The article says she used ChatGPT and failed to verify the citations.
  • The court treated the matter as criminal contempt, with no sanction yet imposed on this page.
  • Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada.
  • On 2025-09-30, Lee admitted she alone used ChatGPT and had lied about staff involvement.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-09-11
The NCLT relied on fake or non-existent judgments apparently generated through AI, and the Supreme Court set aside its order and the NCLAT's judgment.
Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. · NCLT · Supreme Court of India
“A judicial decision relying on fake or hallucinated precedents is no decision in law.”

Cases that don't exist

  • (2015) 2 SCC 1
casemine.com ↗
The file →
  • Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.; NCLT relied on fake precedents.
  • The tribunal used fake, non-existent, or AI-generated hallucinated legal precedents.
  • The Supreme Court set aside the NCLT order and the NCLAT judgment; no monetary sanction is stated.
  • Supreme Court of India; the article names the court but no judge.
  • Decided 2025-09-11; the Court said there is zero tolerance for AI-generated legal material without verification.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-09-03
A court-appointed special master found Dr. Sawyer cited nonexistent sources from AI use and said the error might warrant costs and cross-examination but not exclusion.
In re: Valsartan Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation · Dr. Sawyer · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · NJ
“Dr. Sawyer's citation to non-existent sources due to his use of an artificial intelligence tool without adequate verification of the sources generated by the artificial intelligence tool, while perhaps warranting an award of costs in favor the defense and permitting cross examination of Dr. Sawyer during the trial on his failure to verify the sources cited in his report, does not warrant exclusion of his opinions as they are otherwise the product of reliable scientific methodology and are supported by "good grounds," especially given "the liberal thrust of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the flexible nature of the Daubert inquiry, and the proper roles of the judge and jury in evaluating the ultimate credibility of an expert's opinion" ….”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • In re: Valsartan Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation; Dr. Sawyer was challenged over fake citations in his expert report.
  • He used an artificial intelligence tool to help locate sources, and multiple cited sources were found to be nonexistent.
  • The court did not exclude his opinions, but said the problem could warrant costs and cross-examination.
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; the article says the decision was handed down Sept. 3.
  • The page says Dr. Sawyer and counsel never identified the particular AI tool, and the judge cited the liberal thrust of the FRE and Daubert.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-09-01
A petition was withdrawn after opposing counsel exposed fabricated citations that invented paragraphs from Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi.
Greenopolis Welfare Association v. Narender Singh · Delhi High Court · DL

Cases that don't exist

  • Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi
medianama.com ↗
The file →
  • Greenopolis Welfare Association v. Narender Singh was a flat-possession dispute.
  • The petition quoted invented paragraphs from a landmark judgment.
  • The petition was withdrawn after the fabricated citations were exposed.
  • Delhi High Court, Delhi.
  • September 2025; it quoted paragraphs 73 and 74 from a 27-paragraph judgment.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-09-01
A Delhi High Court petition was withdrawn after opposing counsel exposed entirely fabricated citations and phantom paragraphs from a real judgment.
Delhi High Court September 2025 matter · Delhi High Court
medianama.com ↗
The file →
  • Delhi High Court petition
  • Opposing counsel exposed entirely fabricated citations, including phantom paragraphs
  • The petition was withdrawn; no sanction is stated
  • Delhi High Court
  • September 2025; the article says the real judgment had only 27 paragraphs
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-08-19
Wheatley J said AI-generated references were fabricated and misleading and adopted redaction of false case citations.
JML Rose Pty Ltd v Jorgensen (No 3) · Federal Court of Australia
“There has been an approach, which I will adopt, of redacting false case citations so that such information is not further propagated by AI systems.”
counselmagazine.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • JML Rose Pty Ltd v Jorgensen (No 3) in the Federal Court of Australia
  • The court discussed erroneously generated references that were fabricated, fictional, false and fake
  • No sanction amount or sanction was reported on the page
  • Federal Court of Australia, Australia
  • 19 August 2025; Wheatley J said false case citations should be redacted
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-08-19
A trial court order cited four AI-generated non-existent cases, and the High Court refused to set it aside and dismissed the revision.
R.P.No.1658 of 2023 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
“The Court held that an order is not vitiated by the mere inclusion of non-existent AI-generated citations if the legal principles applied to the facts are correct under the law of the land.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Subramani v. M.Natarajan((2013) 14 SCC 95
  • Chidambaram PIllai v. SAL Ramasamy(1071 (2) SCC 68
  • Lakshmi Devi v. K.Prabha((2006) 5 SCC 551

+1 more

lekhanews.in ↗
The file →
  • R.P.No.1658 of 2023 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court
  • Trial court order relied on four AI-generated non-existent citations
  • High Court dismissed the revision; no sanction was imposed
  • Andhra Pradesh High Court, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh
  • Decided 2025-08-19; judge accepted the trial judge's explanation and warned to verify sources
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-08-01
A Victorian solicitor filed AI-generated content with inaccurate citations and was later disciplined by the Victorian Legal Services Board.
Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166 · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
lst.org.au ↗
The file →
  • Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166 involved a Victorian solicitor
  • The solicitor filed AI-generated content containing inaccurate citations
  • The Victorian Legal Services Board imposed discipline including loss of principal rights and trust-money authority
  • The underlying matter was in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
  • In August 2025, the sanction included two years of supervised practice with quarterly reporting
Caught, not sanctioned Perplexity AI 2025-07-23
A clerk used Perplexity AI and produced fabricated party names, invented precedents, and wrong statements of state law, leading Judge Henry T. Wingate to vacate the order.
Jackson Fed’n of Teachers v. State · Southern District of Mississippi · MS
“technical mistake”
wabarnews.org ↗
The file →
  • Jackson Fed’n of Teachers v. State; a clerk
  • Used Perplexity AI and generated fabricated party names and invented precedents
  • Order was vacated; no sanction amount stated
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
  • July 23, 2025; Judge Henry T. Wingate tried to remove the original from the public docket
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-07-23
An LIP filed fabricated tax cases generated by AI, and the Upper Tribunal declined sanctions while noting systemic risks.
HMRC v Gunnarsson · Upper Tribunal
thebarristergroup.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • HMRC v Gunnarsson involved an LIP and fabricated tax cases.
  • The LIP relied on hallucinated authorities generated by AI.
  • The Upper Tribunal declined sanctions and expressed sympathy.
  • The court was the Upper Tribunal in the UK.
  • The page says the ruling warned that repeated hallucinations could force courts to verify every citation.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-07-01
Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo sanctioned an attorney whose brief cited only one actual case after using AI-fabricated citations.
Marina Garcia Marmolejo · US District Court for the Southern District of Texas · TX
“Given that the Laredo Division is one of the busiest court dockets in the nation, there are scant resources to spare ferreting out erroneous AI citations in the first place, let alone surveying the burgeoning caselaw on this subject,”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo sanctioned an attorney in the Southern District of Texas.
  • The brief cited only one actual case, with the rest being erroneous AI citations.
  • The article gives no monetary amount, so the sanction type is not specified beyond sanctions.
  • US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Texas.
  • July 2025; the court noted the Laredo Division's heavy docket and limited resources.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-06-06
A barrister filed judicial review grounds with five nonexistent cases and the court said contempt proceedings threshold was met but declined to start them.
R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey · Divisional Court
“It was identified that there are “serious implications on the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if AI is misused””
barcouncil.org.uk ↗
The file →
  • R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey involved a barrister in judicial review proceedings.
  • The grounds included misinterpretations of legislation and five cases that did not exist.
  • The Divisional Court met the contempt threshold but did not initiate contempt proceedings.
  • Court: Divisional Court, England and Wales; the article gives [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin).
  • Date: 2025-06-06; the court warned about serious implications if AI is misused.
Caught, not sanctioned Claude 2025-05-23
Latham filed an expert declaration with a Claude-formatted citation that fabricated the article title and authors.
Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC · Latham and Watkins · N.D. Cal. · CA
“undermines the overall credibility”
gc.ai ↗
The file →
  • Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC involved Latham and Watkins.
  • Claude was used to format a reference, but it fabricated the title and authors.
  • Judge Susan van Keulen struck the affected paragraph; no one was sanctioned.
  • N.D. Cal., California.
  • May 2025; the error was a single citation in an expert declaration.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-05-21
A Toronto lawyer filed AI-generated fake case citations and avoided contempt charges after the judge accepted public shaming and remedial steps.
Toronto Lawyer Avoids Contempt Charges for AI-Generated Fake Case Citations
“The judge said public shaming, as well as the fact that the lawyer took full responsibility for the errors and committed to remedial measures, was enough.”
law.com ↗
The file →
  • A Toronto lawyer faced contempt charges over AI-generated fake case citations.
  • The filing included hallucinated citations, but the court did not impose contempt.
  • Sanction type was none; the lawyer narrowly avoided sanctions.
  • Toronto, Canada; the court and judge are not named on the page.
  • May 21, 2025; the judge relied on public shaming and remedial measures.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2025-05-20
Senior lawyer Jisuh Lee showed cause over fake precedent cases in a factum, but she apologized and purged her contempt before the hearing continued.
Ko v Li · Jisuh Lee · Ontario Superior Court of Justice
“to bring home to all lawyers the need to check and not to trust factums [sic] generated by AI or by others”
claytonrice.com ↗
The file →
  • Ko v Li involved senior lawyer Jisuh Lee.
  • Her factum contained fake precedent court cases prepared using ChatGPT.
  • She purged her contempt, so no sanction was imposed.
  • Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
  • 2025-05-20; Justice F.L. Myers said lawyers must check factums generated by AI.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-05-01
Marc Gunnarsson filed tribunal submissions using an AI chatbot that invented case law, but the judge was lenient and no sanction is reported.
Marc Gunnarsson · Marc Gunnarsson · tax tribunal
jmc-legal.com ↗
The file →
  • Marc Gunnarsson in a tax tribunal dispute
  • He used an AI chatbot to prepare submissions with invented case law
  • The judge was lenient and no sanction is reported
  • Tax tribunal, England
  • May 2025; the cited fake cases were Patel v HMRC, Ali v HMRC, and Kamran v HMRC
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-04-29
Both parties in an appeal filed briefs with fabricated citations to non-existent OLG decisions, but the page does not say what sanction, if any, followed.
Oberlandesgericht Celle · Higher Regional Court of Celle
noxtua.com ↗
The file →
  • Oberlandesgericht Celle was an appeal in which both sides used fabricated case citations.
  • The briefs cited non-existent OLG decisions.
  • The page does not report any sanction imposed in this incident.
  • Court: Higher Regional Court of Celle; jurisdiction/state not given on the page.
  • Date: 2025-04-29; the page highlights professional negligence and AI-generated legal research without verification.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-04-18
Sullivan & Cromwell filed a motion with incorrect case names, numbers, and apparently fabricated quotes, then apologized and said it would submit a corrected filing.
Prince Global Holdings bankruptcy matter · Sullivan & Cromwell · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · NY
“"Hallucinations" are instances in which artificial intelligence tools fabricate case citations, misquote authorities, or generate non-existent legal sources,”
yahoo.com ↗
The file →
  • Prince Global Holdings bankruptcy matter; Sullivan & Cromwell was the firm involved.
  • A filing contained inaccurate citations and other errors, including AI hallucinations.
  • No sanction is reported; the firm apologized and said it would correct the filing.
  • The matter was in Manhattan before Chief Judge Martin Glenn.
  • On 2025-04-18, partner Andrew Dietderich wrote the judge; the errors were caught by Boies Schiller Flexner.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-04-01
Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst sanctioned a plaintiff after finding five cited cases did not exist.
Lee Dunst · US District Court for the Eastern District of New York · NY
“The AI-generated fake cases left the court with “no choice but to survey the case law regarding attorney misconduct relating to the use of AI” rather than “resolving a routine matter of civil procedure,””
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst in the Eastern District of New York imposed sanctions.
  • A plaintiff's motion cited five cases that the court found did not exist.
  • The article gives no dollar amount, only that sanctions were issued.
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, New York.
  • April 2025; the order said the court had to address AI misconduct instead of a routine civil procedure matter.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-03-20
City Attorneys took full responsibility for improper AI use that led to hallucinated case citations after receiving an order to show cause.
Case 2:25-cv-01260-CJB-EJD · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · LA
digitalcommons.law.scu.edu ↗
The file →
  • Case 2:25-cv-01260-CJB-EJD involved City Attorneys taking responsibility for AI misuse.
  • The filing says the improper use of A.I. led to hallucinated case citations.
  • No sanction amount or formal sanction is stated in the excerpt; the order to show cause is mentioned.
  • The court is the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.
  • Filed 2025-03-20; the excerpt gives no AI tool name or judge quotation.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-01-16
Two elderly litigants in person faced contempt concerns over fabricated citations, but the court declined to commit them, narrowly and reluctantly.
Olsen v Finansiel Stabilitet A/S · High Court of England and Wales
“narrowly and somewhat reluctantly”
searchthe.law ↗
The file →
  • Olsen v Finansiel Stabilitet A/S is the named case.
  • The matter involved two elderly litigants in person and fabricated citations.
  • The court did not commit them for contempt.
  • The court was the High Court.
  • Decided 16 January 2025; the article says the restraint was narrow and reluctant.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-01-06
Thomas W. King’s brief was flagged for apparent AI-hallucinated citations, and the judge ordered it corrected and refiled without imposing sanctions at the hearing.
South Side Area School District et. al v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission · Thomas Breth and Thomas W. King III / Thomas More Society · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · PA
““When I read the brief that was signed by three attorneys from your firm, I had a problem,” he told King and fellow lawyer Thomas E. Breth. “I read what I believe to be artificial intelligence hallucinations.””

Cases that don't exist

  • Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Labor and Industry
wesanews.org ↗
The file →
  • South Side Area School District et. al v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission; Thomas W. King and his firm were scrutinized.
  • The 50-page October filing was said to contain quotes that did not exist or were miscontextualized.
  • No sanction was imposed in the hearing; King was told to correct and refile the brief.
  • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania.
  • Dec. 12, 2025 article; Judge Matthew Wolf said he believed the brief contained AI hallucinations.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2025-01-01
The appellant filed written submissions with six inaccurate cited decisions and one apparently fictitious case; the court ignored the authorities and denied costs.
NCR v KKB, 2025 ABKB 417 · Alberta Court of King’s Bench
“Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court. Unchecked, it can lead to the miscarriage of justice.”
hayherlee.com ↗
The file →
  • NCR v KKB, 2025 ABKB 417 involved a self-represented mother.
  • Her written submissions cited six inaccurate decisions and one apparently fictitious case.
  • The court denied costs and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
  • The decision was from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench.
  • The court inferred possible AI-generated content and quoted Zhang v Chen about fake cases.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-01-01
Michael Fourte submitted court filings with AI-fabricated quotations and citations and was sanctioned.
Michael Fourte · Michael Fourte
cmr.berkeley.edu ↗
The file →
  • Michael Fourte was sanctioned in 2025.
  • He filed court papers filled with AI-fabricated quotations and citations.
  • The page does not state the sanction type or amount.
  • The court and location are not named on the page.
  • He later filed another motion, also written with a large language model, repeating the same mistakes.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-01-01
A self-represented litigant filed materials with AI-hallucinated case law, and the court said inaccurate AI-based filings can draw costs orders.
Wu v. Murray · British Columbia Court of Appeal
“whether the inaccurate representations are made by a lawyer or a self-represented party”
canadianlawyermag.com ↗
The file →
  • Wu v. Murray involved a self-represented litigant, not a named lawyer or firm.
  • The filing included AI-hallucinated case law.
  • The court said inaccurate AI-based filings can be penalized with remedies including costs orders.
  • British Columbia Court of Appeal, British Columbia.
  • 2025; the page cites the case as an example of the court's filing directive, but gives no sanction order date or AI tool.
Caught, not sanctioned 2025-01-01
A party's submissions included a non-existent case, showing hallucinated references can slip into court filings when AI outputs aren't verified.
Luck v Secretary, Services Australia · Federal Court of Australia Full Court
lexisnexis.com ↗
The file →
  • Luck v Secretary, Services Australia involved a party's submissions.
  • The page says a non-existent case was included in the submissions.
  • No sanction is described on the page.
  • Federal Court of Australia Full Court, Australia.
  • 2025; cited as a stark reminder that hallucinated references can reach the record.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2024-12-01
A tribunal order was reportedly withdrawn after it cited a wrong High Court, a wrong party name, and a repealed provision.
Buckeye Trust v. PCIT · ITAT Bangalore · KA
advocateprakhar.com ↗
The file →
  • Buckeye Trust v. PCIT was identified as the first documented Indian AI-hallucination incident.
  • The ITAT Bangalore order was reportedly withdrawn after suspected AI hallucinations.
  • The issue was wrong citations, including a wrong High Court and wrong party name.
  • The outcome was withdrawal and re-hearing, not a monetary penalty.
  • The page dates it to December 2024 and says the tribunal order was later identified retrospectively.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2024-12-01
The Bengaluru bench recalled an order after it cited four non-existent judgments traced to unverified ChatGPT use.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bengaluru bench matter · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru bench
medianama.com ↗
The file →
  • ITAT Bengaluru bench matter
  • An order cited four non-existent judgments from unverified ChatGPT use
  • The bench recalled the order; no formal sanction is stated
  • Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru
  • December 2024; the citations were traced back to ChatGPT
Caught, not sanctioned 2024-07-15
Bluefort’s brief contained mistaken and misleading citations drafted with AI, but Judge Mark Howard said the matter was resolved with no further action.
Windham couple v. contractor (name not given) · Nicole Bluefort · Rockingham County Superior Court · NH
“the court considers the matter resolved and no further action is necessary”
concordmonitor.com ↗
The file →
  • Nicole Bluefort in the Windham couple’s lawsuit
  • AI-drafted briefs contained mistaken, misleading and nonexistent citations
  • No sanction; Bluefort paid just over $5,000 in opposing counsel’s extra time
  • Rockingham County Superior Court, New Hampshire
  • July 15 order; Judge Mark Howard accepted remediation and ended the matter
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2023-11-22
Attorney Zachariah Crabill received a 90-day suspension after filing fabricated ChatGPT citations in a custody case and lying to the judge about their origin.
People v. Crabill · Zachariah Crabill · Colorado Office of Presiding Disciplinary Judge · CO
“In November 2023, a Colorado disciplinary judge approved a suspension of one year and one day, with 90 days to serve, for violations including competence, diligence, and candor to the tribunal.”
getvoibe.com ↗
The file →
  • Zachariah Crabill was sanctioned in a Colorado custody case.
  • He filed fabricated ChatGPT citations and then lied to the judge about their origin.
  • The court imposed a 90-day suspension.
  • Colorado state court.
  • 2024; the page says this was not merely a fine.
Caught, not sanctioned 2023-05-11
Butler Snow lawyers included AI-generated case citations in two court filings before Judge Anna Manasco.
Butler Snow LLP · Butler Snow LLP · US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · AL
delcantochambers.com ↗
The file →
  • Butler Snow LLP was named for the Alabama filings.
  • The firm included AI-generated case citations in two court filings.
  • The page does not state a sanction, only the filings and judge's discovery.
  • US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama; Judge Anna Manasco.
  • May 2023; the article cites a Reuters report about the incident.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2023-01-01
A litigant in person filed an appeal submission citing nine non-genuine authorities that were hallucinated by generative AI.
Harber v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs · UKFTT
hausfeld.com ↗
The file →
  • Harber v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs involved a litigant in person
  • She cited nine supportive authorities in an appeal submission
  • The authorities were fabricated and hallucinated by generative AI
  • No sanction is reported on this page
  • UKFTT; the page gives 2023 and identifies ChatGPT as an example
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2023-01-01
The page says this 2023 South African case dealt with fake case law produced by ChatGPT, and the judge was more forgiving and found no intent to mislead.
Parker v Forsyth
theconversation.com ↗
The file →
  • Parker v Forsyth is named as a 2023 South African case.
  • The page says fake case law was produced by ChatGPT.
  • The judge found no intent to mislead and was more forgiving.
  • The court and judge are not named on the page.
  • 2023; the page presents it as an earlier, less severe South African incident.
Caught, not sanctioned ChatGPT 2023-01-01
An appellant filed nine bogus historical tribunal decisions as precedents and said it was possible she had used ChatGPT.
UK tax tribunal case · UK tax tribunal
lawsociety.org.zw ↗
The file →
  • UK tax tribunal case involving an appellant
  • Nine bogus historical tribunal decisions were submitted as supposed precedents
  • The article reports no sanction; the appellant said it was possible she used ChatGPT
  • UK tax tribunal
  • 2023; the page says this was one of the earlier AI-hallucination cases
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.