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
46
Incidents tracked
10
Incidents in 2026
$57,250
In fines, where reported
3 of 46 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 22 of 46 incidents — the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 7 Gemini 1 Lexis+ AI 1

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

Hall of Shame

All Fined 241 Caught, not sanctioned 220 Warned 108 Referred to the bar 82 Reprimanded 46 Filing dismissed 37 Outcome unclear 7 Suspension 2

Showing 46 incidents. Clear filters

Reprimanded ChatGPT
Three attorneys filed a motion with fabricated AI citations; a federal judge publicly reprimanded and disqualified them and referred them to the State Bar.
Alabama supervising attorney and others · federal judge · AL
“This was “an extreme dereliction of professional responsibility” and “lazy, convenient fictions” substituting for truth.”

Cases that don't exist

  • United States v. Baker
  • Kelley v. City of Birmingham
  • Greer v. Warden
vlex.com ↗
The file →
  • Alabama supervising attorney was one of three lawyers sanctioned over a motion with fake citations.
  • ChatGPT produced citations that were copied into the motion without verification.
  • The court publicly reprimanded and disqualified all three attorneys and referred them to the State Bar.
  • Federal court in Alabama.
  • Page says the judge called the conduct “recklessness in the extreme” and required review of 52 federal cases.
Reprimanded ChatGPT
Two outside attorneys cited cases that ChatGPT hallucinated in an unrelated lawsuit and were publicly reprimanded and referred to licensing authorities.
Baltimore Central Booking & Intake Center conditions case · Matthew Reeves and William Lunsford · U.S. District Court · MD
thebanner.com ↗
The file →
  • Matthew Reeves and William Lunsford were the attorneys.
  • They cited cases that ChatGPT hallucinated in an unrelated lawsuit.
  • Judge Anna M. Manasco publicly reprimanded them and referred them to bar authorities.
  • U.S. District Court in Alabama.
  • The article says this happened this year; the page names ChatGPT and the referral.
Reprimanded
The principal of a Victorian boutique firm was reprimanded for breaching the Supreme Court’s guidance on GenAI in litigation.
Reprimand for principal lawyer for using AI in estate litigation · Supreme Court of Victoria · VIC
lawyersweekly.com.au ↗
The file →
  • The principal of a Victorian boutique firm was reprimanded.
  • The page says the lawyer used AI in estate litigation.
  • The sanction was a reprimand.
  • The court was the Supreme Court of Victoria.
  • Published Dec. 31, 2025; no tool, date, or judge quote is given.
Reprimanded
A defendant’s solicitor used AI in opening submissions, producing non-existent citations, and the Victorian Supreme Court reprimanded her.
Re Walker · Victorian Supreme Court
“it was unacceptable for AI to be used by solicitors or barristers in the production of court documents, unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified.”
bnlaw.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Re Walker; the defendant’s solicitor was sanctioned
  • AI was used in preparing opening submissions with hallucinated citations
  • The court imposed a reprimand with no monetary amount stated
  • Victorian Supreme Court, Australia
  • Justice Moore found four unfamiliar authorities chambers could not locate
Reprimanded
A lawyer in Australia used LLM-generated false citations and was stripped of his ability to practice as a principal lawyer.
The Australian incident
socialsciencespace.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in Australia, unnamed on the page, was sanctioned
  • He used a large language model that generated false citations
  • He was stripped of his ability to practice as a principal lawyer
  • The page gives no court or judge name
  • The article says he apologized and the citations were not due to human error or intent to deceive
Reprimanded
A Los Angeles attorney filed appellate briefs containing AI-hallucinated case law quotations and agreed to discipline from the California State Bar.
California State Bar disciplinary matter (Los Angeles attorney) · Los Angeles attorney · California State Bar · CA
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Los Angeles attorney disciplined by the California State Bar
  • Filed appellate briefs rife with AI-hallucinated case law quotations
  • Agreed to discipline; no amount stated
  • California State Bar in California
  • Feb. 26, 2026 article; stipulation approved Wednesday
Reprimanded
A lawyer filed AI-generated citations with real cases but invented quotes inside them, and the Sixth Circuit reprimanded the lawyer and vacated the result.
United States v. Johnson-Ferris · Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
broadbandbreakfast.com ↗
The file →
  • United States v. Johnson-Ferris; lawyer unnamed
  • AI tool cited real cases but invented quotes inside them
  • Sixth Circuit reprimanded the lawyer and vacated the result
  • Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Date not stated; the court appointed new counsel for the defendant
Reprimanded
The Georgia Supreme Court disciplined a prosecutor after finding her AI use led to fabricated and misleading case citations in a murder case.
California court reverses ruling that relied on made-up ... · Georgia Supreme Court · GA
reuters.com ↗
The file →
  • A prosecutor was disciplined in a murder case.
  • Her AI use led to fabricated and misleading case citations.
  • The sanction was a reprimand.
  • The court was the Georgia Supreme Court in Georgia.
  • The article says this happened this month; no AI tool or quoted language is given.
Reprimanded
An attorney filed a brief in Texas with false or incongruous citations from unreviewed AI-generated documents, leading to reciprocal discipline in New York.
Matter of Zareh · First Department · NY
nysba.org ↗
The file →
  • Matter of Zareh involved the plaintiff’s attorney
  • Texas court found the citations and brief were unreviewed AI-generated documents
  • New York imposed reciprocal public censure
  • First Department, New York state proceeding
  • The article says the Texas sanction was a public reprimand
Reprimanded ChatGPT
Forrister submitted AI-fabricated citations in a filing and faced discipline from the Texas Supreme Court.
In re: The State Bar of Texas v. Christopher W. Forrister · Christopher W. Forrister · Supreme Court of Texas · TX
caseread.ai ↗
The file →
  • Christopher W. Forrister was disciplined for AI-fabricated citations.
  • He filed a document that included fake citations generated by AI.
  • The Texas Supreme Court issued a reprimand.
  • The court was the Supreme Court of Texas.
  • The page names ChatGPT as the AI tool but gives no order date.
Reprimanded $47K
Attorney Joshua B. Watkins and Burrill Watkins LLC were publicly reprimanded for AI-fabricated legal statements and citations in Rivera v. Triad Properties Corp.
Rivera v. Triad Properties Corp. · Joshua B. Watkins; Burrill Watkins LLC · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · AL
“Mr. Watkins's misconduct includes—and extends well beyond—the misuse of artificial intelligence to make both misleading and outright fabricated statements of law.”
reason.com ↗
The file →
  • Rivera v. Triad Properties Corp.; Joshua B. Watkins and Burrill Watkins LLC were sanctioned.
  • Watkins used AI to make false statements of law and hallucinated cases in filings and hearings.
  • The court publicly reprimanded them and ordered $47,056.90 in fee payments total.
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama; Judge Anna Manasco.
  • The order says the conduct violated Rule 11 and warranted sanctions under the court's inherent authority.
Reprimanded
The Georgia Supreme Court found an order contained non-existent or unsupported citations and admonished and suspended the prosecutor for six months.
Payne vs. 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”.”
blogs.lse.ac.uk ↗
The file →
  • Payne vs. State involved an order with non-existent citations.
  • The proposed order was prepared by the prosecutor with help from an LLM tool.
  • The court admonished the prosecutor and suspended her for six months.
  • Supreme Court of Georgia; Georgia.
  • The page says she did not cross-check the citations before submitting them.
Reprimanded
A lawyer filed fake and hallucinated citations in a brief and was reprimanded by the U.S. appeals court.
Lawyer’s use of “fake and hallucinated” citations gets reprimand from U.S. appeals court · U.S. appeals court
l4sb.com ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer was reprimanded after filing fake and hallucinated citations.
  • The page says the citations were fake and hallucinated due to AI hallucinations.
  • The sanction was a reprimand with no amount stated.
  • The court was a U.S. appeals court in federal court.
  • The page gives no attorney name, date, or AI tool.
Reprimanded
A lawyer filed an appellate brief with eight DEA adjudications, seven misrepresented and one nonexistent, and the Third Circuit reprimanded him.
McCarthy v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
“Attorney has harmed his credibility with this Court.”
stevenslee.com ↗
The file →
  • McCarthy v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration; the physician assistant’s lawyer was sanctioned.
  • He filed an opening brief using eight DEA adjudications from his client, but seven were misrepresented and one did not exist.
  • The Third Circuit reprimanded him in a precedential decision, with no monetary penalty imposed.
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; Judge Cindy Chung authored the decision.
  • The court said it would have imposed a monetary penalty absent the lack of prior Third Circuit guidance.
Reprimanded
A regulated trademark attorney relied on inaccurate AI outputs with fabricated authorities, and the tribunal found serious misconduct.
UKIPO Trademark Appeal (BL O/0559/25) · UK Intellectual Property Office
“A regulated professional is under a duty to exercise independent judgment and cannot abdicate that responsibility to an algorithm.”
thebarristergroup.co.uk ↗
The file →
  • The page identifies a UKIPO trademark appeal, BL O/0559/25.
  • Both an LIP and a regulated trademark attorney relied on inaccurate AI outputs, including fabricated authorities.
  • For the attorney, the tribunal treated the conduct as serious misconduct.
  • The matter was before the UK Intellectual Property Office.
  • The page says the attorney was subject to the stricter professional standard because he was regulated.
Reprimanded 2026-07-30
A lawyer copied non-existent and incorrect case law from an AI tool into two tenancy cases, and the Disciplinary Board in ’s-Hertogenbosch reprimanded the lawyer.
Reprimand after AI use in tenancy cases · Disciplinary Board in ’s-Hertogenbosch
verileges.nl ↗
The file →
  • A lawyer in two tenancy cases was reprimanded.
  • The lawyer copied non-existent and incorrect case law from an AI tool.
  • The sanction was a reprimand.
  • Disciplinary Board in ’s-Hertogenbosch.
  • 30 July 2026; the lawyer had not checked the generated sources.
Reprimanded ChatGPT 2026-07-07
The Connecticut Supreme Court found seven ChatGPT-caused filing errors by a GLG Law LLC attorney and ordered continuing legal education, finding negligence rather than intent to mislead.
TOV Realty, LLC v. Angel Suarez et al. / Kosel Equity, LLC v. Mark MacGregor et al. · Ian G. Gottlieb; GLG Law LLC · Connecticut Supreme Court · CT
“why they should not be sanctioned for misrepresenting “the law through the use of generative artificial intelligence.””
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • GLG Law LLC attorney Logan Vance was the subject of the order.
  • Seven filing errors were caused by ChatGPT, according to the court.
  • The court ordered continuing legal education, not money.
  • Connecticut Supreme Court, Connecticut.
  • August 3, 2026; the court found negligence in using new technology, not an intent to deceive.
Reprimanded ChatGPT 2026-05-21
H. Gregory Harp filed a response with false quotations attributed to real cases and was sanctioned by Judge Harold D. Mooty III.
Jackie Miller v. Regions Bank · H. Gregory Harp · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · AL
““Lawyers make errors. Competent and ethical lawyers own them””
findlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Jackie Miller v. Regions Bank; attorney H. Gregory Harp
  • Harp filed a response with false quotations in support of summary judgment briefing
  • He was sanctioned and suspended for six months in the Northern District of Alabama
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Alabama
  • May 21, 2026; the court suspected generative AI and Harp later admitted using free ChatGPT for proofreading
Reprimanded 2026-03-30
Counsel filed an appellate brief with two non-existent cases and a false quotation; the Seventh Circuit admonished him but declined further sanctions.
Dec v. Mullin · Seventh Circuit
“Whatever AI’s future in litigation, our concern lies with trained lawyers failing to check the accuracy of legal citations and quotations in their filings.”
natlawreview.com ↗
The file →
  • Dec v. Mullin involved petitioner’s counsel.
  • He cited two non-existent cases and a false quotation in a brief.
  • The Seventh Circuit admonished him but imposed no further sanctions.
  • Seventh Circuit, federal appellate court.
  • March 30, 2026; the court said counsel failed to verify citations.
Reprimanded 2026-03-27
A Pennsylvania attorney filed a brief using AI-generated summaries of eight DEA adjudications, including one non-existent decision; the Third Circuit reprimanded him and imposed no monetary sanction.
No. 24-2704 ____________ STEPHEN MCCARTHY, P.A. · Stephen McCarthy, P.A · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
“Attorney has harmed his credibility with this court”
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov ↗
The file →
  • McCarthy v. DEA involved a Pennsylvania attorney and the Third Circuit.
  • He relied on AI-generated summaries of eight DEA adjudications, and one did not exist.
  • The court issued only a reprimand and no monetary sanctions.
  • The court was the Third Circuit; the article gives no location beyond that.
  • The article says the court cited his belated corrections and sincere contrition, and did not clearly articulate AI expectations.
Reprimanded Lexis+ AI 2026-03-11
Counsel submitted briefs with three nonexistent cases in an employment appeal; the Fourth Circuit publicly admonished him.
In re: Eric Chibueze Nwaubani · Eric Chibueze Nwaubani · Fourth Circuit Standing Panel on Attorney Discipline
“three nonexistent cases, each with materially different citations than those of the cases [the attorney] meant to cite”

Cases that don't exist

  • Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jackson, 548 U.S. 629 (2006)
  • Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Glencore Ltd., 611 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
  • In re Acres Properties, Inc., 100 F.3d 1307 (7th Cir. 1996)
nortonrosefulbright.com ↗
The file →
  • In re: Eric Chibueze Nwaubani; attorney Eric Chibueze Nwaubani
  • Briefs in Bolden v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. cited three nonexistent cases
  • The Fourth Circuit publicly admonished him
  • Fourth Circuit Standing Panel on Attorney Discipline; federal; location not specified on the page
  • No date given on the page; the panel said D.C. Rule 8.4(d) applied regardless of whether Gen AI was used
Reprimanded 2026-02-24
The CBCA sanctioned a party for citing nonexistent authorities and quoting fabricated deposition testimony, issuing a formal admonishment.
Louis J. Blazy v. Department of State · Civilian Board of Contract Appeals
smithlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Louis J. Blazy v. Department of State was sanctioned by the CBCA.
  • The party cited nonexistent authorities and fabricated deposition testimony.
  • The sanction was a formal admonishment.
  • Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, federal forum.
  • Feb. 24, 2026; the Board warned continued misconduct could lead to dismissal.
Reprimanded 2026-01-27
A federal judge in Pennsylvania reprimanded two Gordon Rees attorneys for filing a motion to dismiss containing at least eight AI-generated false case citations.
Gordon Rees · Gordon Rees · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · PA
law360.com ↗
The file →
  • Gordon Rees attorneys were reprimanded in a Pennsylvania copyright infringement suit.
  • They filed a motion to dismiss with at least eight false case citations generated by AI.
  • The court imposed a reprimand, with no monetary amount stated.
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.
  • January 27, 2026; the article says the citations were generated by artificial intelligence.
Reprimanded 2026-01-20
A federal judge canceled proceedings after finding both sides' lawyers used AI in filings and punished all four lawyers.
Jessica B. v. Jones County School District · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · MS
nytimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Jessica B. v. Jones County School District; all four lawyers on opposing sides
  • The page says both sides used artificial intelligence in the lawsuit and the judge punished them
  • The sanction was punishment/reprimand and the proceedings were canceled
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi; Mississippi
  • Dated 2026-01-20; no AI tool or fabricated citations are named on the page
Reprimanded 2026-01-14
Celebrezze filed a disciplinary matter with AI-fabricated legal citations, and the Supreme Court of Ohio sanctioned him.
Disciplinary Counsel v. Celebrezze · Celebrezze · Supreme Court of Ohio · OH
supremecourt.ohio.gov ↗
The file →
  • Disciplinary Counsel v. Celebrezze involved Celebrezze.
  • He submitted a disciplinary filing with AI-fabricated legal citations.
  • The court imposed a reprimand.
  • The sanction came from the Supreme Court of Ohio in Ohio.
  • The order is dated 2026-01-14 and the page excerpt does not name an AI tool.
Reprimanded 2025-12-12
In an injunction proceeding, the judge suspected an appeal brief was drafted using AI and admonished the lawyer after declaring the appeal void.
La IA también alucina con leyes · Court in the Argentine province of Salta
“She admonished the lawyer, stating that while the use of Artificial Intelligence is not prohibited, the lawyer remains fully responsible for the content.”
konbriefing.com ↗
The file →
  • La IA también alucina con leyes; the lawyer
  • A brief in an injunction proceeding contained serious inconsistencies and was suspected to be AI-drafted
  • The judge admonished the lawyer and declared the appeal void
  • Salta, Argentina
  • 2025-12-12; the appeal was declared desierta
Reprimanded 2025-12-03
Gordon Rees received a reprimand after filing documents containing AI-hallucinated or fictitious legal citations.
Villalovos-Gutierrez v. Pol. · Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani · U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney · CA
“Counsel shall not file or otherwise present to the court any documents which contain AI-hallucinated citations or fictitious or non-existent legal citations.”
completeaitraining.com ↗
The file →
  • Gordon Rees was reprimanded in Villalovos-Gutierrez v. Pol.
  • The court said the firm filed documents with AI-hallucinated or fictitious citations.
  • The sanction was a reprimand with no amount stated.
  • The order came from U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney.
  • Date was December 3, 2025; the page did not name an AI tool.
Reprimanded ChatGPT 2025-11-21
Gordon Rees submitted filings with hallucinated AI citations; Judge Christopher L. Hawkins declined to sanction the firm but reprimanded former lawyer Cassie D. Preston.
Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc. bankruptcy proceeding · Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama · AL
“attorneys must not allow their personal feelings to cloud their professional judgment, and Ms. Preston crossed a line when she resorted to making use of arguments and authorities generated by artificial intelligence”
news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Jackson Hosp. & Clinic Inc. and Cassie Preston were sanctioned in bankruptcy court.
  • She submitted filings with artificial-intelligence generated fake citations.
  • The court publicly reprimanded her and ordered disclosure/compliance steps, with no monetary amount stated.
  • US Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama; Judge Christopher L. Hawkins.
  • Order dated 2025-11-21; the opinion also found misleading and fabricated citations.
Reprimanded Gemini 2025-11-12
A Dubai-based lawyer cited two non-existent QFC cases in submissions, and the QFC Court found him in contempt but imposed no penal sanction.
Jonathan David Sheppard v Jillion LLC · A Dubai-based lawyer · Qatar International Court (QFC Court)
“It was inconceivable for any lawyer not to verify the case law citations produced by an AI tool with the actual body of case law published by the QFC Court.”

Cases that don't exist

  • Al Khor International School v. Gulf Contracting Co. (QFC 2022)
  • Doha Bank v. KPMG (QFC App 2019)
qatarlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Jonathan David Sheppard v Jillion LLC; a Dubai-based lawyer
  • He relied on AI research and cited two non-existent QFC cases
  • The court found contempt but imposed no penal sanction
  • Qatar International Court (QFC Court), Qatar
  • 2025-11-12; the court said lawyers must verify AI-produced citations
Reprimanded 2025-11-01
An attorney filed AI-written family-law papers with fake citations; the Kammergericht Berlin reprimanded the lawyer for not reviewing them.
Invented Case Law Citations in Attorney’s Court Filing · Kammergericht Berlin
“As lawyers, they are “obligated” to do so, the court wrote.”
posteo.de ↗
The file →
  • Family-law appeal by a mother seeking custody and court-cost assistance.
  • Attorney filed court documents with citations the court found were obviously written with AI.
  • Kammergericht Berlin reprimanded the attorney.
  • Highest court in Berlin; ruling on a published family-law matter.
  • Decision made in November of the prior year; court said the filing was 'obviously written with the help of AI.'
Reprimanded $150 2025-10-01
Cathleen Jane Siebrecht filed a brief with hallucinated case citations, and the Iowa Court of Appeals imposed a public reprimand and $150 penalty.
In re Cathleen Jane Siebrecht · Cathleen Jane Siebrecht · Iowa Court of Appeals · IA
““The Iowa Court of Appeals discovered that two cases you cited were entirely hallucinated and at other points the brief incorrectly characterized the language or holding of the source cited,””
yahoo.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Cathleen Jane Siebrecht; attorney Cathleen Jane Siebrecht of Pleasant Hill
  • She filed a brief in a 2025 termination-of-parent-rights appeal using AI and false case citations
  • Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board issued a public reprimand; court imposed a $150 penalty
  • Iowa Court of Appeals, Iowa
  • October 2025; court said two cited cases were “entirely hallucinated” and required ethics training in lieu of payment
Reprimanded 2025-08-15
Mr Dayal filed AI-generated false citations in a court submission and had his practising certificate varied, barring him from running his own law practice.
Mr Dayal · Mr Dayal · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
ia.acs.org.au ↗
The file →
  • Mr Dayal was penalised after filing fake AI-generated citations in a submission.
  • He admitted he did not verify the contents before filing.
  • His practising certificate was varied, so he cannot act as a principal lawyer or run his own practice.
  • The matter was in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
  • The article says the regulator acted in mid-August and the lawyer used AI-based legal software.
Reprimanded 2025-08-01
A solicitor tendered a list and summary of legal authorities that did not exist, and the Victorian Legal Services Board varied his practising certificate.
Dayal · Mr Dayal · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
“The use of technology is an integral part of efficient modern legal practice.”
cowellclarke.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Dayal and Mr Dayal were sanctioned after tendering authorities that did not exist.
  • The filing used AI and contained false or fictitious legal authorities.
  • The Victorian Legal Services Board varied his practising certificate; no amount was stated.
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Victoria.
  • August 2025; he could no longer practise as principal or handle trust moneys and had supervised practice for two years.
Reprimanded 2025-07-02
A lawyer filed a family-law brief with scholarship and case citations the court said were generated by artificial intelligence and freely invented, and the judge publicly rebuked the filing.
Amtsgericht Köln · Local Court Cologne
“make finding justice more difficult, mislead the unknowing reader, and severely damage the reputation of the rule of law and especially the legal profession.”
noxtua.com ↗
The file →
  • Amtsgericht Köln involved a lawyer whose family-law brief contained invented citations.
  • The court found the books and legal decisions cited did not exist.
  • The judge issued a public rebuke over the AI-generated, freely invented citations.
  • Court: Local Court Cologne; jurisdiction/state not given on the page.
  • Date: 2025-07-02; the page says the citations were apparently generated by artificial intelligence.
Reprimanded 2025-07-02
A lawyer filed a family-court brief that the Cologne District Court found was apparently generated by AI and freely fabricated.
312 F 130/25 · Cologne District Court
“Die weiteren von dem Antragsgegnervertreter im Schriftsatz vom 30.06.2025 genannten Voraussetzungen stammen nicht aus der zitieren Entscheidung und sind offenbar mittels künstlicher Intelligenz generiert und frei erfunden”
fastdatascience.com ↗
The file →
  • 312 F 130/25 involved the respondent’s representative.
  • The brief was found to be AI-generated and freely fabricated.
  • The court called it Berufsrechtsverstoß, a professional misconduct violation.
  • Cologne District Court in Cologne, Germany.
  • The incident date given on the page is July 2, 2025.
Reprimanded 2025-07-01
A legal brief included claims not from the cited case and evidently invented by AI; the court issued a clear reprimand.
Cologne court July ruling on AI-generated claims · court in Cologne
“Counsel must refrain from making such remarks in the future, as they impede the judicial process, mislead non-specialist readers, and severely harm the reputation of the constitutional state and especially the legal profession.”
posteo.de ↗
The file →
  • Cologne court matter involving an attorney.
  • The brief included claims that did not come from the cited case and were generated by AI.
  • The court issued a clear reprimand.
  • Court in Cologne, Germany.
  • July of the prior year; court said the conduct violated the Federal Lawyers’ Act.
Reprimanded 2025-06-06
A trainee barrister and a solicitor filed submissions containing fictitious and inaccurate case law, and the High Court reprimanded them.
Frederick Ayinde v The London Borough of Haringey · High Court
““freely available generative artificial intelligence tools… are not capable of conducting reliable legal research””
salford.ac.uk ↗
The file →
  • Frederick Ayinde v The London Borough of Haringey involved a pupil barrister and a solicitor.
  • Their submissions contained fictitious and inaccurate case law.
  • The High Court reprimanded them; no amount is stated.
  • High Court, England and Wales.
  • 6 June 2025; the court said freely available generative AI tools are not capable of reliable legal research.
Reprimanded 2025-01-01
A Victorian solicitor was sanctioned for using AI in a court case and presenting false citations, with restrictions placed on his practising certificate.
In re Vincent J. Sullivan · a solicitor in Victoria · Federal Court of Australia
attwoodmarshall.com.au ↗
The file →
  • In re Vincent J. Sullivan; a solicitor in Victoria was sanctioned.
  • He used AI in a court case and presented false citations.
  • Restrictions were placed on his practising certificate, including revoking principal status.
  • Federal Court of Australia.
  • 2025; the article calls it an Australian-first and says the court required AI disclosure.
Reprimanded 2025-01-01
A solicitor filed hallucinated AI-generated family law authorities and was disciplined by the Victorian Legal Services Board.
Handa & Mallick · a solicitor in Handa & Mallick · Victorian Legal Services Board
open.cx ↗
The file →
  • Handa & Mallick involved a disciplined solicitor
  • The solicitor submitted hallucinated authorities generated by AI
  • The Board barred him from trust money and unsupervised practice for two years
  • Victorian Legal Services Board
  • 2025; the page identifies the matter as an Australian family law case
Reprimanded 2024-03-30
An attorney filed a reply brief with more than 70% fictitious citations, and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals issued a public censure.
In re Willis · an attorney in Dyersburg, Tennessee · Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
faughnanonethics.com ↗
The file →
  • In re Willis; an attorney in Dyersburg, Tennessee was censured.
  • He filed a reply brief in an Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals matter with fictitious citations.
  • The tribunal imposed a public censure.
  • Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, federal tribunal.
  • March 30; the board found more than 70% of the brief's citations were fictitious.
Reprimanded 2024-01-01
A lawyer filed a list of authorities that did not exist, and the court varied his practising certificate and imposed supervised practice.
Dayal · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
kennedypartnerslawyers.com.au ↗
The file →
  • Dayal involved a lawyer who submitted a list of authorities to the court that did not exist.
  • The court treated the filing as a serious accuracy failure in court documents.
  • His practising certificate was varied, he could not act as a principal lawyer or handle trust money, and he had to do supervised practice for two years.
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
  • 2024; the article says practitioners remain personally responsible for the accuracy of documents they file.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.