legaltech.fyi Beta

Tracker

Sanctions watch

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

Embed this
126
Incidents tracked
50
Incidents in 2026
$4,000
In fines, where reported
1 of 126 report an amount

The curve

Incidents per month

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

Apr 2025 Sep 2026

Charting 74 of 126 incidents; the rest are undated or fall outside this window.

Blamed by name

ChatGPT 20 Copilot 5 AI-assisted legal software 2 ChatGPT-4o 1 Claude 1 CoCounsel 1 Legal Genius 1 Lexis+ AI 1 Strongsuit 1

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

Hall of Shame

All Fined 251 Caught, not sanctioned 199 Warned 126 Referred to the bar 98 Reprimanded 85 Outcome unclear 53 Filing dismissed 36 Suspension 2 Upcoming sanction 1

Showing 1–10 of 126 incidents. Clear filters

Warned
A taxpayer's attorney cited three fictitious AI-generated cases in a brief and failed to correct them, prompting a sanctions warning from the Tax Court.
Clinco · United States Tax Court
“submitting a brief with fictitious caselaw is a recipe for sanctions”

Cases that don't exist

  • Cacchillo, 130 T.C. 132 (2008)
  • Miller, 57 T.C. 440 (1971)
  • Tefel, 118 T.C. 324 (2002)
omegatechnologysolutionsgroupinc.com ↗
The file →
  • Clinco (T.C. Memo. 2026-16) involving an unnamed taxpayer's attorney
  • Attorney cited three fake AI-hallucinated cases regarding deficiency notices
  • Court issued a stark warning that filing fictitious caselaw is a recipe for sanctions
  • U.S. Tax Court before Judge Mark V. Holmes
  • No specific incident date or AI tool name provided in the text
Warned
An appellate court ordered an attorney to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for submitting unfocused filings containing 'AI slop' and gibberish.
Jaclyn Soroka · Jaclyn Soroka · Florida 4th District Court of Appeal · FL
“an AI supercomputer would struggle to find meaning in some of the prose used in this case”
theoutpost.ai ↗
The file →
  • Jaclyn Soroka was warned and ordered to show cause by a Florida appellate panel.
  • She submitted lengthy, unfocused filings filled with 'AI slop' and frivolous arguments.
  • The court warned of potential sanctions and issued an order to show cause.
  • The ruling came from the Florida 4th District Court of Appeal.
  • Judge Robert Gross noted an AI supercomputer would struggle to find meaning in the prose.
Warned
The court acknowledged the defendant provided several hallucinated citations and issued a warning regarding sanctions.
Ruggierlo, Velardo, Burke, Reizen & Fox, P.C. v. Lancaster · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · MI
fsbrlaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Ruggierlo, Velardo, Burke, Reizen & Fox, P.C. v. Lancaster
  • Defendant provided several hallucinated legal citations
  • Court issued a warning about the availability of sanctions
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
  • Decided September 11, 2023
Warned CoCounsel 2026-09-02
A lawyer received a court warning for misrepresenting case law generated using CoCounsel.
Sea Swivel Inc. v. Shuttleslide LLC, et al. · S.D. Florida · FL
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Sea Swivel Inc. v. Shuttleslide LLC, et al.
  • A lawyer misrepresented case law in court filings using the AI legal research tool CoCounsel.
  • The court issued a warning to the attorney.
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
  • Decision issued on September 2, 2026, involving CoCounsel.
Warned
A Texas court issued a warning to counsel whose mandamus petition contained attributions and quotations that appeared to be AI-fabricated hallucinations.
IN RE PAULA M. MILLER, Relator · AC Texas · TX
damiencharlotin.com ↗
The file →
  • Case IN RE PAULA M. MILLER involved an unnamed lawyer submitting AI hallucinations.
  • The petition contained attributions and quotations that appeared to be AI-fabricated.
  • The court issued a warning regarding potential future corrective measures.
  • The decision was issued by AC Texas in the state of Texas.
  • Decided on April 23, 2026, the court emphasized counsel must verify AI research.
Warned
The court warned that many citations in the brief either did not exist or did not support the legal argument, and inaccurately quoted statutes and the record.
Young v. Young · Minnesota Court of Appeals · MN
“we emphasize that hallucinated caselaw is not valid authority and that all parties should be mindful of the importance of accuracy in their submissions”
legaltech.fyi ↗
The file →
  • Young v. Young involving unverified party submissions
  • Brief contained nonexistent citations, inaccurate statutory quotes, and record misstatements
  • Court issued a warning emphasizing accuracy and that hallucinated caselaw is invalid
  • Minnesota Court of Appeals in Minnesota
  • Undated opinion acknowledging AI's utility but warning against unverified filings
Warned Strongsuit 2026-08-20
Plaintiff's counsel filed a joint claim construction brief containing AI-generated errors, but the court declined to impose Rule 11 sanctions after counsel promptly disclosed the mistakes.
Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Products Inc. et al. · U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware · DE
“The Court expects that these events and this Opinion shall serve as a cautionary warning and learning experience for counsel moving forward.”
legaltech.fyi ↗
The file →
  • Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Prods. Inc. involved plaintiff's counsel using generative AI.
  • Counsel used the AI tool Strongsuit to draft a brief containing erroneous proposed claim constructions.
  • Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves issued a warning but declined to impose sanctions.
  • The matter was heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • Counsel took full responsibility and prioritized candor, prompting the court to issue a warning instead of sanctions.
Warned
The court flagged local counsel's failure to police an AI-tainted brief and ordered show-cause briefing rather than imposing a final sanction.
Schramm v. Mayrack · U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware · DE
minchellalaw.com ↗
The file →
  • Schramm v. Mayrack involved unpoliced AI content in a brief.
  • Local counsel failed to check the AI-tainted brief and manage deadlines.
  • The court issued show-cause briefing rather than a final sanction.
  • The case was in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • The docket did not reflect a final sanction and the underlying matter went to appeal.
Get Sanctions Watch in your inbox
New AI-citation sanctions, the morning after they hit the docket.