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
7
Incidents tracked
1
Incidents in 2026
$0
In fines, where reported
0 of 7 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 1 of 7 incidents — the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 2 Gemini 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 7 incidents. Clear filters

Outcome unclear ChatGPT
Mr. Sauve filed a new federal complaint using ChatGPT and Claude that was described as a fake case littered with hallucinated citations in violation of court rules.
Sauve · Mr. Sauve · federal court
nytimes.com ↗
The file →
  • Mr. Sauve filed a new federal complaint.
  • The pleading used ChatGPT and Claude and was described as a fake case.
  • The page does not state any sanction or amount.
  • The court is identified only as federal court.
  • No date or judge name is given; the article says the complaint had hallucinated citations.
Outcome unclear 2026-03-11
The defendants said the claimant deployed AI-generated hallucinatory references to non-existent cases, causing unnecessary cross-checking.
Setu Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Anor · not stated
naturalandartificiallaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Setu Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Anor involved the claimant.
  • The page says AI-generated references to non-existent cases were deployed.
  • No sanction is stated on the page.
  • Court not stated on the page.
  • 11 Mar 2026; the references caused unnecessary effort in cross-checking.
Outcome unclear 2024-07-17
The page lists this as a case where attorneys were sanctioned for citing AI-generated non-existent cases.
United States v. Cohen · S.D.N.Y. · NY
justicespeakersinstitute.com ↗
The file →
  • United States v. Cohen is named in the page’s citation list.
  • It is described as one of several incidents involving briefs with non-existent cases generated by AI.
  • The page gives no sanction details beyond listing the case as an example.
  • The court listed is S.D.N.Y., a federal court in New York.
  • The page gives July 17, 2024, and does not specify the attorney or AI tool.
Outcome unclear 2023-11-27
The page lists this as a case where attorneys were sanctioned for citing AI-generated non-existent cases.
Park v. Kim · E.D.N.Y. · NY
justicespeakersinstitute.com ↗
The file →
  • Park v. Kim is named in the page’s citation list.
  • It is described as one of several incidents involving briefs with non-existent cases generated by AI.
  • The page gives no sanction details beyond listing the case as an example.
  • The court listed is E.D.N.Y., a federal court in New York.
  • The page gives November 27, 2023, and does not specify the attorney or AI tool.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.